Negotiating Jewishness in Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech
Unity or Diversity Negotiating Jewishness in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech before Congress and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Diplomarbeit
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Magisters der Philosophie
an der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz
Vorgelegt von Bernhard KOGLER-SOBL
am Institut für Amerikanistik Begutachter: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stefan L. Brandt
Graz, 2016
Unity or Diversity Negotiating Jewishness in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech before Congress and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Stefan L. Brandt
Bernhard Kogler-Sobl Studienkennzahl: B 190 299 344
Studienrichtung: Lehramtsstudium Englisch, PP Email Address: [email protected]
2016-06-08
Table of Contents
Introduction ______1
1. Jewishness as a Subject of Negotiation ______5 1.1. Defining Identity ______5 1.2. Dimensions of Jewish Identity______7 1.2.1. Religion: Judaism as a Definite Marker of Identity ______8 1.2.2. Ethnicity: Jewishness as Cultural Heritage ______9 1.2.3. Race: Jewishness as ‘Genetic Heritage’ ______10 1.2.4. Nationality: A People Living Abroad ______12 1.2.5. Fate: Identification through Victimization ______15 1.3. Shades of Being Jewish ______17
2. Jon Stewart and the Role of Humor in Negotiating Jewish Identity ______19 2.1. Criticizing and Defending Jewishness with Humor ______19 2.2. A Jewish Take on Religion and Politics ______23 2.3. Deconstructing Myths in the Media ______29
3. The Importance of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu for Jewish Americans and US Politics ______39
4. ‘One People’: Jewishness in Netanyahu’s Speech before Congress ______46 4.1. Us and Them: Gaining Authority through Othering______48 4.2. Esther as the Myth of a Champion for the Jews ______51
5. Heterodoxy: Jewishness in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart ______55 5.1. Undermining Authority ______55 5.2. ‘Angry Jews’: Using a Stereotype to Reclaim Diversity ______62
Conclusion ______65
Introduction The negotiation of Jewish identity is more complex than that of many other social identities. Like blackness or masculinity, Jewishness is a social reality. Unlike the two other social identities it cannot be instantly assigned to a person at the first glance. Nor are there any definitions as clear as those for, say a Christian or an Austrian identity. The question of who is Jewish and who is not, does not have a straight answer. Indeed, there are so many different approaches that the question has merited its own article on Wikipedia. Apparently, the article “Jews” could not answer the question comprehensively and “Who is a Jew?” had to become an article in its own right. If ending the title of an encyclopedic article with a question mark were not enough to indicate the complexity and uncertainty of its subject, the caption on top of this particular article would suffice. As of February 2016, it reads: “This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail”. The heading could be interpreted as marking a discussion of insiders, which is hardly of interest to the general public. Henry Bial, a Jewish scholar of performance studies, argues that “the only people who care about the answer” to the question “Who is Jewish?” are Jews, anti- Semites and those who “we might call philo-Semites, non-Jews who have a fascination with things Jewish” (137). However, I would argue against Bial's perception that Jewish identity is merely a topic for the immediately affected, the crudely obsessed or the especially interested. The multiple layers of Jewish identity and how they are negotiated by the Jewish community have a distinct impact on politics, especially in the United States. A vivid example of this claim is provided by a Jewish American senator these days. The primaries and caucuses for the US presidential election in 2016 have seen the rise of an unlikely contender. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont is not only the first Jewish American to win a presidential primary election, but he also managed to put a veritable challenge to Hillary Clinton, the odds-on favorite in the race for the Democratic nomination. With social identity playing a considerable role in the political process of the United States, it is rather common for potential candidates to thrust their identities into the spotlight, especially if this might mobilize a relevant group of voters or donors. And it makes sense to expect, for example, that Barack Obama has a perspective on the troubles of African Americans which is different from that of a white candidate, or that Hillary Clinton has first-hand knowledge of what it means to be a woman working within predominantly male power structures. Bernie Sanders, however, has not made his Jewish identity a core feature of his campaign. Unexpected, or undesired, as this move was, it raised a question which was
2 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
asked by the media on various occasions and which CNN formulated in the following way: “Is Sanders intentionally keeping his Jewish faith in the background during his campaign?” To this question, Sanders responded: I am very proud to be Jewish and being Jewish is so much of what I am. Look, my father's family was wiped out by Hitler in the holocaust. I know about what crazy and radical and extremist politics mean. I learned that lesson as a tiny, tiny child when my mother would take me shopping and we would see people working in stores who had numbers on their arms, because they were in Hitler's concentration camps. (“Sanders: Holocaust taught me about political extremism”) Contrary to the wording of the question, Sanders' answer illustrates that Jewish identity is not necessarily a question of faith. It opens up a historic or racial dimension of Jewishness. “How can I, as a Jew who lost 13 relatives in the Holocaust, do anything that would betray Israel?”, Henry Kissinger once defended his hard stance on Israeli policies (Troy). Despite the similarity in tone of Sanders' and Kissinger's account of their family's fate in the holocaust, Jewish self-identification has undergone a major shift over the last few decades. Kissinger reverted to this part of his identity, when it promised to bring home an argument, but he would never express a sense of pride regarding his Jewish identity. As a matter of fact, he probably could not have afforded to do so during his time as America's first diplomat for the Nixon administration (ibid.). By now, the political atmosphere has changed and former vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman is a living example of this change. Today's Jewish community in the US is way more outspoken and Jewish Americans often proudly assert their membership of 'the tribe' (cf. Bial 137-139). This new presence of Jewish Americans as explicitly Jewish Americans in the public sphere is bound to have an impact on political discourse. Both the fact that a person is Jewish and sometimes the degree to which a person is considered to be Jewish, are used to legitimize or delegitimize their positions. Whether Bernie Sanders does or does not use the word Judaism to describe his identity, whether he does or does not give a speech in front of AIPAC1, is discussed widely among Jewish Americans and beyond. But while the self-confessed socialist does not seem eager to make the case for his agenda by bringing in his Jewishness, other protagonists have repeatedly done so in the past. It is the tension between the narratives propagated by two Jewish men, Jon Stewart and Benjamin Netanyahu, which will serve as the core of this diploma thesis
1 The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is the largest pro-Israel lobby in the US. In March 2016, Bernie Sanders was the only remaining contender for a party's nomination who did not attend AIPAC's policy conference.
3 Unity or Diversity
On March 3, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an address to the U.S. Congress. In “the most anticipated speech to Congress by a foreign leader in many years” (Baker), as the New York Times would have it, Netanyahu emphasized the risks of a nuclear deal with Iran, which was being negotiated at the time. In order to promote his political agenda, Netanyahu painted the picture of a united and endangered global Jewry, which needed to be protected. The timing of his visit was criticized by the US government, because it took place only two weeks before the Israeli legislative election, in which Netanyahu's conservative Likud party hoped to keep the relative majority of seats in the Knesset. Furthermore, the Obama administration was working hard at the time to ensure public support for the Iran deal and win over enough votes from the Republican majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. So far, both houses of Congress had staunchly opposed the plan, which had led to an invitation for Netanyahu by house majority leader John Boehner. Over the years the Republican party has taken over the role of a firm supporter of Israeli policies, especially as Democrat leaders introduced critical views to the debate on Israel's settlements in the West Bank and its role in the peace negotiations. In the ongoing power struggles between the White House and the Capitol, the support of Jewish Americans may win the Presidential elections for either of the parties. This is how a speech by the leader of a country as small as Israel can still have a considerable political impact on U.S. domestic politics. This is why Netanyahu's address to Congress was so “anticipated”. As Israel's conservative government and the conservative opposition in the US both claim the status of an advocate for Jews all over the world, the issue has become rather divisive. Above all, Netanyahu has become such a controversial figure that the prospect of his visit was sufficient to rouse his supporters and critics in the US, who soon engaged in a heated public debate of Jewish identity. The Jewish American comedian Jon Stewart commented on Netanyahu's speech during a segment in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, of which he was the anchor until August of 2015. The Daily Show does bear the name of its popular host within the title for several reasons. One of them surely is marketing. Jon Stewart hosted the show for over 16 years and has become one of the most celebrated figures of American TV. Yet, he is also one of the two executive producers of the show and “has always been deeply involved in the script (unusually for a host), writing and rewriting drafts right up to the last minute” (Freeman). Stewart defines The Daily Show as fake news or news satire: “By using the general structure of a news show, which we find inherently satirical, we've found a cheap way to get in twenty monologue-type jokes” (quoted in Rogak 91). As Stewart's liberal worldview informs his comedy and the perspective of The Daily Show, he has repeatedly been one of the strongest voices of opposition in
4 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
American media, especially so during the years of George W. Bush's presidency. An aspect of Stewart's identity which is commonly seen as Jewish is his humor. The wit and self-mockery, with which he responds not only to his own Jewishness but to most of his topics, are attributed to a long tradition of comedy produced by Jewish artists. Throughout his career Stewart's Jewish identity has been a prominent part of his shtick2, which has gained him the status of a spokesperson at least with a more liberal part of the Jewish community. This diploma thesis will show how Netanyahu and Stewart represent Jewishness and how the differences in their representation serve distinct political agendas. For this purpose, I will first provide a more precise idea of what is actually being negotiated under the term Jewishness. I will outline the concept of identity I am going to work with and analyze which identities qualify as Jewish. By discussing Jewishness from several angles which usually serve to distinguish social identities, I will provide a framework of different dimensions for Jewish identity. Four of these dimensions, are widely used: religion, ethnicity, race and nationality. The identifying power of a fifth dimension, which I will refer to as fate, is evident in the above quotes by Sanders and Kissinger. The shared history of discrimination, prosecution and the genocidal mass- murder of the holocaust, is brutal evidence of a community being imagined by a hostile Other. Placing Jon Stewart within the framework of these five dimensions shall not serve as a pretext to speculate about his personal or psychological motives. On the contrary, a selective look at the biography of Jon Stewart – and later at Benjamin Netanyahu’s – will provide a good grasp of the public personae of these two Jewish men and their roles in public discourse. It will also allow me, on the one hand, to analyze how Jewish humor is used in cultural negotiations generally and particularly by Jon Stewart. On the other hand, I will interpret the idea of the Jewish State and its role in the political arena of the US on the background of Netanyahu's identity and career. These sections will be followed by a close reading of excerpts from Netanyahu's speech before Congress on March 3, 2015 and material from The Daily Show which is mainly of the same date. These analyzes will draw, among other ideas, on Roland Barthes' concept of myth. Finally, I will demonstrate that Netanyahu uses his speech to create the impression that Jews are a distinct and united group. I will also show that Jon Stewart systematically refutes this narrative in order to promote a heterogeneous view of Jewish identity.
2 Yiddish for piece, act (www.yiddishdictionaryonline.com). In this context, an element in a comic routine, which is typical for a performer.
5 Unity or Diversity
1. Jewishness as a Subject of Negotiation Despite of being a rather small minority within the United States, Jews are arguably a group, which finds itself in the center of American society. Due to its important role in the everyday proceedings of the political, economic and social life of the US, the Jewishness of any particular member of this group is often taken for granted by their non-Jewish compatriots. However, the boundaries of the group are far from clear-cut and its very composition may call into question whether Jewish Americans can even be considered to form a single group. If Jewish Americans share more than merely the designation Jewish Americans, if they intend to fill the concept of a Jewish identity with life, they necessarily need to negotiate the contents of this identity. Certain practices, values or signs may be ascribed to a Jewish identity. Hence, a group of people sharing them may be considered Jewish by others as well as by the group itself. By selecting Benjamin Netanyahu and Jon Stewart as the prime examples of such discourse, this diploma thesis focuses on the “cultural negotiations” (Alcoff, 315) within the group. Opinions as for who belongs to the group and who does not may differ. Depending on which items are regarded as crucial or constituent for a Jewish identity, Jewishness may refer to an ethnicity or a religious group. If the focus is on matrilineal descent, the concept may imply a race (Moshin and Jackson 70), if it is limited to Israeli citizenship, a nationality. No matter which approach to Jewishness is taken, it is important to keep in mind that all of them are socially constructed. Thus, there can be broad and narrow definitions of who is a Jew. The resulting struggle for meaning has caused a lot of debate within the Jewish community and at its supposed margins. It engaged rabbis as well as converted gentiles, and as individuals in positions of power try to weigh in on the debate, it extends from the Israeli-born politician to the talk show host from New Jersey. But before any in-depth analysis of particular examples can be conducted, it is necessary to have a better idea of what exactly is being negotiated. In this chapter I will first introduce the reader to the definition of identity I am going to work with. I will then outline the various layers of Jewish identity with respect to (and partly in contrast with) concepts such as religion, nationality, ethnicity and race. The chapter will also include an interpretation of the strong, and maybe formative, influence which the labelling by outsiders had on Jewish identity.
1.1. Defining Identity According to Lewis, identity is “the way an individual sees him- or herself, and projects that self into the world. . . . 'identity' is shaped by biological, social and personal factors” (398). This thesis will assume a constructivist approach towards the term, i.e. identity
6 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
is largely constructed by discourse and other cultural influences. It is not a stable fact, but rather a constantly changing condition, it is meaning in progress. If identity is not static, this means that it allows for an element of choice by the individual. He or she consciously and unconsciously selects items of discourse or culture and integrates them into his or her identity. Yet, at the same time the individual is not completely free to decide how to see him- or herself, but is in a state of continuous (if not constant) reassessment of his or her identity. While someone’s personal identity is seen as a unitary and coherent whole, their “social identity is regarded as a constellation of different and often competing identifications” (Kaplan 3) between which the personal identity mediates. These identifications are “relational and mutable, . . . actuated either by the individual’s chosen identifications or by others who label individuals or groups on the basis of characteristics and behaviors that seem shared” (ibid.). The tensions which arise from differences between self-conception and social expectations, can pose a significant threat to the identities of these individuals or groups. Our identity is of intrinsic value to us. Its integrity is a basic condition for our well-being and we will go to great lengths in order to protect it. As Alcoff points out, this strife is never completed, nor does it have the same dimension for all of us: The inevitable interdependence and connection between one’s public identity [social identity] and one’s lived sense of self [personal identity], and the felt need to pursue a coherence between one’s first person and third person selves, does not mean that the self can ever achieve perfect coherence. But it is also a mistake to assume that we are all incoherent to the same degree, or that one person’s struggle . . . is essentially the same as the universal struggle individuals have to integrate their multiple selves. There are significant differences in the scope, depth and daily difficulties of various forms of heterogeneity and disequilibrium.
Although we differentiate these two kinds of selves or identities, sharp distinctions between them are often difficult to make. An individual who is subject to a foreign appellation may come to accept it at some point, or even adopt it as one’s own. Foreign appellation can become self-designation. In fact, Judith Butler makes the point that appellation itself is the source of social identity. It does not identify any pre-existing entity, but actually creates a subject, who only comes into being by responding to the appellation (cf. 104). Thus, social existence is only possible as a subject, i.e. by being subjected to the names and social categories one is assigned. “The desire to persist in one’s own being requires submitting to a world of others that is fundamentally not one’s own.” (28). This psychoanalytic model of social identity actually draws on the works of Freud and Lacan. Their view on identity is almost pathological (Alcoff), in that it
7 Unity or Diversity
regards identity as something the individual clings to although it is inflicted upon him or her. If we limit identity to the psychoanalytical model, it seems to be something the individual should actually overcome or emancipate from. If the individual really was in this desperate state of clinging to every imaginable appellation by the Other, it would lack all influence on its own identity. There would not be any element of choice whatsoever. But the structure provided by an assigned social identity does not completely prohibit the individual’s agency regarding the response. Being racially classified as black . . . is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of being a black person. . . . One becomes a black person only if (1) one begins to identify oneself as black and (2) one begins to make choices, to formulate plans, to express concerns, etc., in light of one’s identification of oneself as black. (Gooding-Williams 23)
The individual might not escape being identified by others, but how the individual’s actions are informed by this identification can be an entirely different story3. In order to be a Jew, an individual needs to enact his or her Jewishness. Also, he or she has to qualify as Jewish, in his or her own eyes and in the eyes of the Other. In as far as this Other is also subject to the question of Jewish identity, the result is a mutual dependence between the self and the Other when it comes to ascertain Jewish identity for each of them. And the discussion of who may or may not be Jewish is nowhere as lively as within the Jewish American community itself. Within it different organizations promote and apply different criteria for being Jewish.
1.2. Dimensions of Jewish Identity The number of Jewish Americans varies greatly according to the applied definition of who is actually a member of this group. “A Portrait of Jewish Americans4” is a 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center which suggests that the number of Jewish Americans lies somewhere between four and eight million people or roughly 2% of the total population. The struggle to quantify America’s Jewish population is aptly illustrated by the six pages of the report which explain how Pew arrived at their estimations. This extensive explanation is an attempt to do justice to the various definitions of Jewishness which are advocated by different Jewish associations and denominations. Hence a closer look at Pew’s methods will allow for some insight regarding different notions of Jewishness. In order to interpret the results of the phone interviews, Pew distinguished four categories of interviewees who would be included in their survey: Jews by religion,
3 Contrasting Butler’s and Gooding-Williams‘ concepts of identity is another idea I owe to Linda Martín Alcoff’s article „Who Is Afraid of Identity Politics?”. 4 Abbreviated to “A Portrait” in further quotations.
8 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Jews of no religion, people of Jewish background and people with a Jewish affinity (A Portrait 19). The former two groups were considered Jewish for the purposes of the survey, while the latter two were not. The category “Jews by religion” simply consisted of all respondents who named Judaism as their religion, but the matter is somewhat more complicated with “Jews of no religion”. The second category of Jews included all respondents who (1) had a Jewish parent or were raised by one, (2) had no other religion than Judaism and (3) considered themselves Jewish or partially Jewish. “People with Jewish background” included people who met the first condition, but had either a religion different from Judaism or did not self-identify as Jewish. Finally, everyone who considered themselves Jewish, but was neither Jewish by religion nor the child of a Jewish parent was assigned to the category “people with a Jewish affinity”. To some extent, these categories reflect how identity was defined above. To be part of the Jewish population of the survey, respondents had to self-identify as Jewish and fulfil certain criteria for Jewishness which would make “intuitive sense to a general U.S. audience” (A Portrait 18). Self-identification alone would not classify one as a Jew, but merely as someone “with a Jewish affinity”. At the same time, some “people of Jewish background” might be considered Jews by others due to their descent, but still not considered Jewish by the Pew survey, because they did not identify as such. It takes both, self and Other, to account for a social identity. While this is all very convenient, it is important to keep in mind that the methodology of Pew’s “A Portrait of Jewish Americans” is but another attempt to draw clear lines, where there are none5. Albeit informed by several different definitions of Jewishness, it cannot provide a final answer, but only highlight some of the main issues surrounding Jewish identity.
1.2.1. Religion – Judaism as a Definite Marker of Identity
There are many possible answers to the question “Who is a Jew?” and some of them are rather straightforward. One example of a clear-cut definition would be: A Jew is someone who practices Judaism. Those who practice the Jewish religion are indeed considered to be Jews. But so are many who do not practice Judaism at all. The Pew survey reflects this by distinguishing between Jews by religion (78% of Jewish adults) and Jews of no religion (22%). The former group can be divided further if we take into account that religious Jews belong to different denominations. The three most common denominations in the US are Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Judaism, with Reform being the largest and most liberal denomination and Orthodox being the
5 Other surveys may, for example, include those who only self-identify as Jews in the core Jewish population, while declaring the children of mixed marriages Non-Jews (Rebhun 44).
9 Unity or Diversity
smallest and most conservative of the three6. To be liberal or conservative in this context also means to have broader or narrower definitions of who is of Jewish religion. Many conversions, for example, are not recognized by the Orthodox, because the rites they deem necessary for a conversion are not always adhered to by the other movements. Thus, even people who practice a form of Judaism may not be universally accepted as Jewish. However, the strongest case against religion as the sole criterion for Jewish identity is that secular Jews are generally accepted by their religious counterparts. 68% of Jews (as identified by the Pew survey) said that a person can be Jewish even if he or she does not believe in god. And still more than half of the Orthodox Jews also hold this view (A Portrait 59). According to 69% of survey respondents, being Jewish means “leading an ethical and moral life” (8), but they do not necessarily mean the religious life of Judaism. A clear majority, even of religious Jews, said that being Jewish is less a matter of religion than of culture or ancestry (54). Religion is a rather reliable identifier of, but not a precondition for Jewish identity.
1.2.2. Ethnicity – Jewishness as Cultural Heritage
Due to this special role of Judaism for Jewish identity and the strong focus of the Jewish community on their culture, many scholars have taken to the term ethno-religious group. Ethnicity is “a social grouping or form of peoplehood that is marked by traits that are perceived to be culturally inherited” (Prentiss 7). Besides ethno-religious, there are numerous other compounds, e.g.: ethno-linguistic, or ethno-national. All of these compounds aim to specify the cultural trait which is most relevant for group identity. As a result, groups are often assigned either of the terms depending on the context, or the intention of the speaker. In fact, the term ethnicity is so broad that in many cases it merely professes the existence of some form of group identity. According to the definition above, identifying oneself or somebody else as a member of an ethnic group, requires a set of cultural traits which serve as a reference system. For Jewish Americans some of these traits may be eating at a delicatessen, using Yiddish words or telling self-deprecating jokes. But then, none of these habits are an exclusively Jewish practice. All kinds of people may eat in a deli. There is a considerable stock of Yiddish loanwords used in everyday language – by Jewish and gentile Americans alike. Self-deprecating jokes are Jewish only insofar as they are about the Jewish community and told by a Jewish person. Jewish humor is no longer Jewish if it is used by a Protestant, but the Jewish person stays Jewish independent of
6 Note that three out of ten Jews by religion said they had no denomination, which would make them the second largest sub-group if included.
10 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
their kind of humor, language or eating habits. In the meanwhile, we can be positive that the yarmulke wearing stranger with the payot is Jewish7. But if brimless caps and sidelocks became fashionable, we would have to look for other ways to ascertain his Jewish identity. These observations may seem trivial, yet they are crucial for a community of which the greater part has rapidly assimilated to the main culture and by now proudly self-identifies as Jewish. For a long time, cultural identifiers were usually hidden from the public. This can be seen in the practice of Jewish actors changing their surnames, or being urged to do so by their producers, who in many cases were Jewish themselves. In order to protect themselves from the accusations that they were ‘controlling the media’ or ‘had no right to represent America’, Jewish identity had to be downplayed (cf. Gabler). Today many Jewish Americans proudly assert their cultural heritage. “The assimilationist anxiety of the twentieth century is out, and cultural and sexual pride . . . is in” says Schneer who also believes that “this heady mixture has been very good for Jewish culture” (58). On the other hand, less optimistic voices may fear that the popularization of Jewish identity will see it “stripped of meaningful content” (quoted in Bial 140). These tensions show that ethnicity, if defined as shared cultural heritage, is at the center of the quest for a common Jewish identity. But it is there for the simple reason that it comprises a variety of more specific concepts such as religion, nation and race. And any group identity which is based on this vague criterion is inevitably patchwork.
1.2.3. Race – Jewishness as ‘Genetic Heritage’
Due to its historic record of discrimination and persecution, the usage of the term race is controversial in and by itself. Prentiss defines “race as a social grouping or form of peoplehood that is marked by traits that are perceived to be biologically inherited” (7). Thus, the American who prides herself of being one-eighth Cherokee, refers to a racial identity. She may have no share in any activities of the tribe and know little to nothing about Cherokee culture, but perceives herself to be partly Native American. If this biological heritage is documented in a recognized tribal census, this claim will likely be accepted by the tribe and potentially entitles to receive certain government benefits. The whole procedure rests on the so-called blood quantum laws, which are based on the idea that at a certain point all tribe members were of ‘pure Native American bloodlines’. This vocabulary was also used to racialize Jewish identity in Europe, an
7 A yarmulke is the traditional Jewish headwear especially for religious ceremonies. It is also called kippah. Payot are the traditional sidelocks commonly worn among the men and boys of the Orthodox community.
11 Unity or Diversity
effort which led to the Nuremberg Laws of the Nazis (Nürnberger Rassengesetze) and culminated in the horrors of the holocaust. In the course of few decades and with the help of contemporary science the Jews had become a race and were classified as non- white. Their supposed biological heritage was a Jewish identity that could be measured by phrenologists. The United States were the dreamland of millions of Jewish immigrants who fled the prosecution of the Old World well before the rise of the Nazis. Yet, even here the Jews were originally classified as black, and thus of a lower racial status than the white population. By this means “’inferior’ religious cultures became inferior races” (Brodkin 54). In her book How Jews Became White Folks and what that Says about Race in America, Brodkin outlines how American Jews later succeeded in asserting their whiteness. In the theatres of the early 1900s many Jews performed the part of the black fool using face paint. By performing the Black as the Other, Jews ceased to be racially black and became Caucasians (Moshin and Jackson 73). These legal constructs and shifts in racial identity demonstrate that the concept of race is based on a perceived biological inheritance. Taking a constructivist approach means that all dimensions of identity are culturally transferred, yet the resulting categories become a social reality. The Pew survey juxtaposed religion with culture/ancestry when it asked what being Jewish was about. It is true that Jewish culture is in many cases passed on from parent to child. Yet, many Jewish Americans see their Jewish identity as something that was passed on to them biologically. The conjunction of culture and ancestry to a single factor in the survey obscures the importance of blood lineage as a potential constituent of Jewish identity. The usual way to become a Jew is to be born Jewish. According to the Halakha, the religious laws of Judaism, only the child of a Jewish mother is a Jew. Thus, the respondents of the survey who saw biological ancestry as the defining factor for being Jewish may have had in mind a religious law. While Jewish Orthodoxy holds that the children of Jewish mothers are irrevocably Jewish, others distanced themselves from biological Jewishness. In 1983, the Reform Movement passed a Resolution on Patrilineal Descent, which reads: The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. (quoted in “Patrilineal Descent”)
If Jewish identity needs to be enacted by its bearer and requires them to have a Jewish parent, it is still inherited, but on a cultural level. The Pew survey addresses both notions: “Were you raised Jewish or did you have a Jewish parent?” The question accepts patrilineal descent as a definition, but also includes purely biological
12 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
definitions. If the respondent has not been raised Jewish, they can still qualify as Jewish, as long as their parents do. In the social sciences race has for the last few decades been discussed in terms of a social reality, as something that is not based on the criteria of biology, but much more on those of common belief and the US census. Meanwhile, developments in the field of genetics have caused the unlikely revival of a biological race concept in popular discourse. New technologies, ranging from genealogical DNA tests to full-scale genetic research, have promised scientific answers to the question of identity. Due to their history of endogamy, Jews form “one of the most distinctive population groups in the world” (Entine). In fact, intermarriage is a comparably new trend among Jewish Americans. Of all Jewish Americans who married before 1970 only 17% married a non-Jewish partner. This figure is up at almost 60% by now (A Portrait 35). Hence, it is no wonder that ‘Jewish genomes’ are a very popular field of study among geneticist. In 2010, teams of genetic researchers led by Harry Ostrer claimed they could “detect Jewish ancestry in anonymous DNA samples” (Balter 1342). Another team also announced that their geneticists had managed to “trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant” (Behar et al. 238). Other researchers soon argued that the origin of Ashkenazi Jews8 was indeed to be found in the Caucasus area and among a local population which converted to Judaism (Elhaik 22). The ensuing debate has still not resolved. The topic is emotionally charged, as the notion of a shared origin in the Middle-East provides a sense of community among Jews in America and elsewhere. For many it continues to justify the foundation of a Jewish state in the region. It confirms the idea of a distinctly Jewish people with Israel as its homeland.
1.2.4. Nationality – A People Living Abroad
“I consider the Jewish question to be neither a social nor a religious one, even if it appears to be the one or the other. It is a national question, and in order to solve it we have to turn it into a political question. . . . We are a people. One people.” (Herzl 51)9. This is how Theodor Herzl, one of the fathers of Zionism, introduces his readers to the idea of The Jewish State. He did not live to see his vision come true in 1948, when the sovereign state of Israel came into being. The nationality of Jewish Americans is obvious – they are by and large U.S. citizens. Yet, the existence of a state which defines
8 Eastern and Central European Jews, whose descendants make up the vast majority of Jewish Americans;
9 All the quotations by Herzl used for this thesis are my translation.
13 Unity or Diversity
itself as Jewish does have a considerable impact on Jewish identity even beyond its borders. Almost 70% of the Jewish Americans interviewed by the Pew Research Center said they were emotionally attached to Israel (A Portrait 82). Many Jewish Americans are also members of Jewish charity organizations or lobbying groups which support programs in Israel or advocate certain policies for the Middle East. Regardless of whether these associations support the policies of the current Israeli government (e.g. AIPAC) or oppose it (e.g. J-Street, JVP), Jewish Americans identify with Israel one way or another. In his book The Invention of the Jewish People, the historian Shlomo Sand lays out several reasons for this, one being globalization. Its dramatic cultural shifts, Sand argues, have weakened the power of the Western nation-state, as a source of identification. However, they have not rendered obsolete the individual’s need for “tangible social frameworks” (310) on which to base their identity. The result is a striving for sub-identities, which promise stability in a rapidly changing social environment. Amid all these developments, Jewish “ethnicity” has enjoyed a resurgence. In the United States this has been a noticeable fashion for some time. . . . In the presence of the Anglo-American, Latin American or African American, a descendant of Eastern European Jewry had to identify himself or herself as Jewish American. The person may not have preserved elements of the great Yiddish culture, but the need to belong to a particular community meant finding a focus of identity amid the sweeping cultural vortex. As the Yiddish culture lost its vitality, Israel increased in importance for many American Jews, and the number of Zionists increased. (ibid.)
Sand is critical of this support for Zionist politics from abroad. In his mind, Jewish Americans support the nationalist movement from a comfortable distance, although none of them would ever “tolerate the discrimination and exclusion experienced by the Palestino-Israelis, who live in a state that proclaims it is not theirs.” (309). Another reason for the strong bond between Israel and the US is that the official Israel sees Jews in other countries as its diaspora. Thus, many Jewish Americans regard Israel as their second home. Under Israel’s Law of Return, the greater part of Jewish Americans would be eligible for Israeli citizenship. The law grants every Jew’s right to come to Israel and adopt Israeli citizenship. The original version of the law defines a Jew rather restrictively: “For the purposes of this Law, ‘Jew’ means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.” (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). This way the law comprises the religious as well as the genealogical notion of Jewishness. Acknowledging the reality of intermarriage, the Knesset made an amendment in 1970: “The rights of a Jew . . . are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew” (ibid.).
14 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
While this formulation sounds already more inclusive, it is important to note that conversions need to be verified by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, which only accepts Orthodox rites for conversion. Furthermore, the Rabbinate prohibits inter-faith marriage in Israel. Thus, in order for members of two different religions to marry, one of the spouses has to undergo conversion – a circumstance which causes many Israeli couples to marry abroad (Chabin). Compared to religion or bloodline, the nation is a rather modern form of what Benedict Anderson calls an “imagined community”. Only at the end of the 18th century did individuals declare independent states in the name of ‘the people’. In order to imagine a national consciousness, people who had never even seen each other needed to feel connected with one another. They needed the shared experience of a print language, which would eventually become ‘their’ national language (Anderson 37-46). The idea of the nation-state was justified by reconstructing the past as a national history. Myths were created of a national identity which had always existed, but the sudden recognition of something that had supposedly been there for such a long time needed an explanation. The contemporary metaphor which explained this ‘wave of nationalism’ was that of a sleeping nation or an “awakening interest” (74). In much the same way Herzl portrays Zionism as the renaissance of an old national identity: “The idea which I present in this writing is an ancient one. It is the foundation of the Jewish state. The world resounds with exclamations against the Jews and wakes this slumbering idea” (43). However, Zionism also differed from other nationalisms, because its subjects lacked a common vernacular. Hence, Jewish nationalists had to draw on the language of the Torah, the Talmud and other rabbinical scriptures in order to create a Jewish language. With the help of the lexicographer Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the Zionist movement managed to transform the sacred language into a national language, with various influences from other European languages, especially Yiddish (Garvía 164). Modern Hebrew soon became the lingua franca of Jews in Palestine and finally the mother tongue of several million Israelis (cf. Parfitt). Obviously, the shared experience, which could nurture a Jewish nationalism, did not lie in a shared print language, as was the case for most European nationalisms. Jews had neither shared religious pilgrimages since the destruction of the Second Temple, nor secular ones to the centers of power (Anderson 55f.). Yet, something triggered “the reimagining of an ancient religious community as a nation” (149). Without doubt, Judaism’s Holy Scriptures provided plenty of material that allowed for an easy transition from religious to national myth. Jews already understood themselves as a community. As children of Abraham they were God’s chosen people.
15 Unity or Diversity
Abraham’s grandson Jacob is renamed Israel and his twelve sons are referred to as the tribes of Israel in the Book of Genesis. Thus, lineage defines the Jewish and peoplehood is defined by family ties to the ‘house of Jacob’. These Israelites were the ones of whom the Book of Exodus speaks when Moses tells the Pharaoh: “Let my people go” (Exod. 5.1). It is not hard to imagine how European Jews throughout the Middle Ages and up to the 20th century could easily identify with the oppressed people of the Israelites in ancient Egypt. And finally, they were promised a land by God10. The myth has the Israelites wander the desert for forty years, depicting the epitome of a pilgrimage. Zionism built on these pictures. It designed the Jewish state as the Promised Land and moving there as “making Aliyah” – moving upwards11. Zionism offered the Jews more than escaping to just another shelter. It offered an elevation, a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which was to become the Jewish homeland. The myths necessary to support a Jewish nationality were in ample supply. The reasons to follow the call to a distant land had long been provided by others.
1.2.5. Fate – Identification Through Victimization
Secular tendencies of the group and the collective memory of being persecuted time and time again, have led many Jews to consider themselves “a community of fate, not of faith” (Neusner 85). In this respect, the introductory quotation by Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders is still remarkable, but not out of the ordinary. As a secular Jewish American, Sanders defines himself through a Jewish experience which was passed on to him by his parents. However, this aspect is far from being restricted to the non-religious. “A Portrait of Jewish Americans” finds that 73% of Jewish Americans consider “remembering the Holocaust” an essential part of being Jewish (A Portrait 57). Thus, it appears to be the factor most Jewish Americans can agree on as an essential ingredient for their identity. The only other item of the survey which came close to these numbers was “leading an ethical life” (69%). The other factors were far behind these two, for example “caring about Israel” and “observing Jewish law” with 43% and 19% respectively (ibid.). There can be no doubt that the systematic mass-murder committed by the Nazis had a lasting impact, which “unfortunately grants anti- Semitism a permanent, if indirect, say in defining the Jew” (Sand 285). However, the power of the hostile Other over Jewish identity dates back much longer and only culminated in the radical racialization of Jews by the Nazis12.
10 Four out of ten Jewish Americans confirmed that they regarded Israel as a gift of God to the Jewish people ˗ a percentage that is even higher among the U.S. general public (PRC 86). 11 In the Book Ezechiel this means going uphill to Jerusalem and the Temple. 12 The term genocide itself bears sad witness to their success in shaping the Jewish community as a race.
16 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
In 1896, Herzl notes: “But maybe we could merge into the peoples who surround us without a trace if one let us be for merely two generations. . . . We are a people – the enemy makes us one without our will” (66). The exclusion from larger society made many Jews stay among their own kind. In Eastern Europe it pushed Jews into shtetls and ghettos, just like their exclusion from many crafts pushed them into the medieval finance sector. Even if some rose to the ranks of the upper bourgeoisie thanks to their economic success or intellectual prowess, they were denied access to the more prestigious positions of the government or the military. On the contrary, their success was largely held against them. The networks which necessarily evolved inside the isolated Jewish communities were represented as evil conspiracies. They were culpable for natural disasters as well as the failures and shortcomings of their gentile critics. The Dolchstoßlegende, according to which unpatriotic republicans and international Jewry had stabbed the otherwise undefeated German army in the back, is only one of the more prominent examples of these accusations. With the help of this myth, the German generality could proclaim that World War I was not lost because of their mistakes, but due to treasonous internal enemies. But by scapegoating the Jewish outsiders the anti- Semite also gains a positive pleasure: the certainty of belonging to an imagined elite (Sartre 32-34). The mutual dependence on each other’s social identity is so strong between them that Sartre claims: “If the Jew did not exist, the anti-Semite would invent him.” (15). He goes on to explain that a Jew is not merely a Judaist, or an Israelite, or a member of the Jewish race, but a being in the situation of a Jew. “So if one wants to know what the contemporary Jew is, it is the Christian conscience which has to be questioned: Instead of ‘Who is a Jew?’ one has to ask: ‘Whom have you made Jews?’” (88). As “never forget” has become a defining phrase for the Jewish self-understanding, some individuals of the next generation get the numbers their parents or grandparents had once burnt onto their forearms in the concentration camps as tattoos (Rudoren). This act of ‘branding’ themselves as Jews is no mass phenomenon and quite controversial within their community, but it is also an apt illustration of the relationship between Jews and their persecutors. The numbers have become accepted as an identifier by both sides. The stigma symbol which was once introduced by the anti- Semite has become the prestige symbol of its bearer (cf. Goffman 59). For the voluntary wearer it can be an assertion of their identity. As descendants, they claim a part of their ancestors’ identity, be it as victims, as survivors, as reminders or as those with a mortal enemy, but definitely as Jews. This symbol from the past marks as definite an identity which has become difficult to grasp. When Theodor Herzl first stated that “the identity of the [Jewish] people cannot . . . dissolve, because external enemies are holding it
17 Unity or Diversity
together” (54), it probably sounded like a lamentable bondage to many of his readers. Today, it might sound almost like a promise when Jewish identity is disputed in all of its dimensions.
1.3. Shades of Jewishness
The broad scope of Jewish identity is laid out, at least rudimentarily. To be sure, the five dimensions above represent a rather arbitrary division of Jewishness. They are an attempt to analyze an otherwise elusive concept by using some of the more common categories which define other social identities. With Jewish identity, the religious dimension can merge into that of nationality, as the religious myth leads to identification with a Jewish state. The national identity can be informed by a racial one if it draws on genealogical research in order to justify its political claims. This racial identity can in turn be contested by an identity concept which is based on fate, and so on. But so far Jewishness has only been discussed in terms of belonging or not belonging to the group. The Jewish/gentile dichotomy allowed us to establish some cornerstones of Jewish identity, but it is of limited use if we want to reach a full understanding of the cultural negotiations within the community. “[I]n so-called black- and-white photography, there is actually no pure 'black' or 'white', only varying shades of grey. 'Black' shades imperceptibly into 'white', just as men have both 'masculine' and 'feminine' sides to their nature.” (Hall 235). To consider all individuals to be on a range somewhere in between “absolutely Jewish” and “not Jewish at all” may seem barely applicable, but it reflects some of the distinctions made within this social identity. While a Jewish American with a rather narrow definition of Jewish identity may accept her secular or patrilineal counterparts as Jewish, she may still hold the view that her own Jewish identity is of a different quality. Said secular Jews may on their part consider the devout to be ‘a different shade of Jewish’ and distance themselves from her views. The importance of such distinctions within American sub-identities for political discourse is evident. Respective comments gain broad media coverage and undermining a political opponent’s social identity can delegitimize their status as a representative of the group. For example, Presidential Candidate Ben Carson, who had difficulty attracting public attention to his campaign, was quoted on all channels after he claimed that President Obama was “raised white” and had not had the real African American experience (Shabad). A remark by the Pope a few days before got similar attention. After his visit to Mexico, Pope Francis said with regard to Donald Trump: “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.” (Burke). The remark implies
18 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
that Christian identity depends on the observance of its ethical code. Thus, the baptized subject of this accusation may be considered Christian ‘to a lesser degree’ by other members of the group. The papal rejection is not an act of excommunication, so the subject in question is still formally a Christian, but it is portrayed as “not a good Christian” or “Christian by name only”. The non-observant Jew may still be a Jew, regardless of his compliance to the religious teachings of his kind. However, some may also consider him Jewish ‘to a lesser degree’ or maintain that he has not had ‘the real Jewish experience’. An Orthodox Jew remembers: “In our family, my father . . . was uninvited from taking part in the wedding ceremony of his niece at the last moment because, as a Conservative rabbi, he was deemed insufficiently Jewish.” (Kolatch). This notion of not being Jewish enough for the hard core of Jewish Americans has an equivalent in being too Jewish for the gentile or those of the Own who would like to assimilate. The answer to the question what makes a Jew a ‘good Jew’ varies accordingly. The good Jew may be the one who proudly wears the signs of his Jewishness and engages in Jewish activities, or the one who tries to pass as gentile. The latter definition of the ‘good Jew’ was profoundly shaped by anti-Semitism. If the assimilated individual is declared a ‘good Jew’, the statement always carries the identification by the hostile Other: “You made some efforts, but you are still a Jew. You cannot trick us.” On the other hand, Jews might experience a pressure to be ‘authentic’ and conform to certain Jewish ideals. The reason for this lies with parts of the Jewish American community who dread that an ever higher degree of assimilation and intermarriage will render the label Jewish more and more void of any clear meaning and ultimately lead to a loss of Jewish identity. Here, the old argument that, the ‘more Jewish’ you are, the ‘less American’ you can be is affirmed from a Jewish perspective – a perspective which is conservative in the words most original meaning. Taken to an extreme, only those who are the furthest away from the cultural mainstream are portrayed as ‘the really Jewish’. This idea is often unknowingly supported by representations in visual media. If a newspaper needs a ‘representative’ picture for an article on any minority, it will usually go for the illustration which is visually most distinctive. Thus, for an article on Islam, the woman with the headscarf is a more popular photo model than the woman without it, who is not immediately identified as a Muslima by the readers. Just like the man with the black hat and the sidelocks is more often depicted to symbolize the Jew for a predominantly gentile audience. The result “prioritizes a certain type of Jewish identity at the expense of other Jewish identities” (Moshin and Jackson 205). The process of stereotyping is not always that subtle and the jokes about certain, supposedly Jewish characteristics give ample evidence of this fact. Interestingly, many Jews seem
19 Unity or Diversity
to actively engage in stereotyping their own. In fact, the very idea of a joke which is on the teller has come to be considered an integral part of what is known as Jewish humor.
2. Jon Stewart and the Role of Humor in Negotiating Jewish Identity Whether there is a form of humor which is distinctly Jewish, is debatable, because many of its techniques are used by a wide range of minorities (cf. Juni and B. Katz). An assessment of the main theories on self-deprecating humor will demonstrate that they apply only in part to Stewart’s jokes, which are actually a deflection of Jewish stereotypes. I will argue that Stewart repeatedly asserts both his Jewishness and his Americanness, a move which allows him to speak with the authority of the insider on each account. A look at Stewart’s career at The Daily Show and the creation of news satire as a genre will not only illustrate his ideological standing, but also show how he uses humor to deconstruct conventional media messages.
2.1. Criticizing and Defending Jewishness with Humor The reasons for ridiculing one’s own identity can vary. However, it is considerably easier to distinguish between them if the joke is examined not merely as a literary product, but as a social situation. A closer look at who tells a joke about whom to which audience, may clarify the situation and provide some valuable clues to the functions jokes have apart from being entertaining. Regarding jokes which ridicule a certain group, Freud observed that they seemed to work best “when the intended rebellious critique is directed against the individual themselves, or, more cautiously expressed, against a person in whom the individual has a share, a collective person, that is (the subject’s own people, for instance)”13 (126). But the function of such a joke is not necessarily self-criticism. It can also serve to distance its teller from his or her own, i.e. demonstrate that the individual does not have a real share in that collective person. The assimilated Jew who parodies the behaviorisms of ‘typical Jews’ in order to amuse his gentile friends, makes a point of belonging to their group instead of the other. He avoids being too Jewish by re-enacting what being too Jewish looks like. Thus, the humor loses its self-deprecating quality. The speaker tells the joke assuming the position of an outsider, as opposed to the targeted insiders of Jewish identity. Nilsen points out that this fundamentally changes the nature of the joke: When insiders tell such jokes, the jokes are tiny revolutions in chiding friends about the frailties to which human beings are prone. The insider is trying to expand the
13 My translation.
20 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
possibilities for group attitudes and behavior. But when outsiders tell the jokes, the effect is quite the opposite. Outsiders tend to focus on the group’s most obvious characteristics and to imply that these characteristics belong to everyone in the group. As outsiders, they have little power to bring internal change, so the effect is to stereotype the group, thereby shrinking the options for thought and action. The insider expands the boundaries, while the outsider telling the same or a similar joke tightens the noose (932). It is this scenario, which some Jewish critics have in mind when they decry deprecating humor as a form of betrayal. Usually though, the speaker will take the role of the insider. Even then, the aim can still be to ‘reduce the share’ one has in Jewish identity. The second-generation of Jewish immigrants, for instance, was most likely to tell Jewish jokes based on accent (Ben-Amos 125). They already possessed a flawless American English and mocked the Yiddish accents of the generation of their parents. The aim of these jokes is not to deny their own Jewish identity, but to “ridicule a social group within the Jewish community from which they would like to differentiate themselves” (ibid.)14. The speaker’s acts can also be assessed from Nilsen’s more benevolent point of view. By laughing at stereotypical accents, the speaker might indeed “expand the possibilities of group attitudes and behavior”, always provided that he or she identifies with the group at large. Here, the joke has an intended educational function for the in-group and the psychological motives for ridiculing the own are not necessarily hostile, as Goffman points out as well: Whether closely allied with his own kind or not, the stigmatized individual may exhibit identity ambivalence when he obtains a close sight of his own kind behaving in a stereotyped way, flamboyantly or pitifully acting out the negative attributes imputed to them. The sight may repel him, since after all he supports the norms of the wider society, but his social and psychological identification with these offenders holds him to what repels him, transforming repulsion into shame, and then transforming ashamedness itself into something of which he is ashamed. In brief, he can neither embrace his group nor let it go. . . . It is only to be expected that this identity ambivalence will receive organized expression in the written, talked, acted and otherwise presented materials of representatives of the group. Thus, in the published and stage-performed humor of the stigmatized is to be found a special kind of irony. (131-132) Hence, the joke which is directed at a group the speaker identifies with, can also serve as a way to express mixed feelings and reduce tension. The tension at work here, is probably best expressed in Du Bois’ African American experience: “One ever feels his two-ness” (9) – in this case the double-consciousness of being an American and a Jew. It is the difficulty of living the life of an insider, while being acutely aware of the outsider’s perspective. This internalized Other has often been interpreted as the source
14 Italics are mine.
21 Unity or Diversity
of a self-hatred and masochism which were both considered to be particularly Jewish. For, if the Jew jokes as a self-confessed insider, about his own people, and in front of outsiders, how else can such behavior be explained? Juni and B. Katz argue that this self-directed humor is actually a coping-strategy employed by oppressed minorities. Becoming the victim of one’s own aggression can be “an adaptive move to avoid ultimate victimization” (121). By exposing its weak spots and hurting itself, the victim effectively forestalls external punishment. In joining its oppressor, the victim “gains a sense of control over the abuse – if not to halt the aggression, then at least to anticipate it and know its direction” (125). The oppressed find themselves in the position of a court jester, who is only tolerated by those in power, because he constantly ridicules himself. He demonstrates submissiveness, which not only flatters the ego of his masters, but also signals that he is no threat to their hegemony. The jester is completely at the king’s mercy, but in his self-deprecation and vulnerability, he may also be the only one who can criticize his master. This is what distinguishes him from other servants and what grants him certain liberties, costly as they may be. He can criticize those in power, because there is no victory they could gain from attacking him. Juni and B. Katz see this as a next step in the coping-strategy of the oppressed. “Victims of violence (especially racial) often keep a ‘stiff upper lip’ so that, as they explain it, the perpetrator ‘will not have the satisfaction’ of seeing them in despair. As an ultimate defiance, a victim who laughs in lieu of the crying response, snatches victory from the aggressor” (130). The victory of the anti-Semite or the racist lies not in winning, but in seeing the Other lose. Juni and B. Katz take this rationale another step further and claim it could lead to a kamikaze kind of humor. The function of this humor is not defense but retaliation, so “if one emasculates himself [sic] as a prelude to an aggressive encounter, then there is nothing left to lose. . . . An opponent with nothing to lose is a formidable opponent indeed” (135). As an illustration for this self-destructive humor the authors suggest the Biblical Samson, who by destroying the temple he stands in, takes with him the Philistines who hold him captive. However, this dramatic picture will hardly come into mind when one listens to the jokes and digs of contemporary Jewish comedians like Jon Stewart. In an interview with Larry King for CNN in 2004, Stewart was asked, whether he considered himself an optimist. The answer he gave is rather telling: Sorry? I'm a Jew. What kind of question is that? ‘Are you an optimist?’ I always have my bags packed. Is that optimistic? I never know when they're going to knock on my door and [tell me to go]. There are very few countries that don't have at least one museum going, ‘And this is when we chased you out.’ That's why we're all in comedy, we want to stay. If anybody stops looking at us, we're like, ‘Mommy, how we love you! How we love you! Like us!’ (“CNN Larry King Live: Interview With Jon Stewart.”)
22 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Stewart’s comment surely has to be taken with a grain of salt. On the one hand, he is playing on the stereotype of the Jewish neurotic. On the other hand, he alludes to a serious lack of trust many Jewish Americans feel towards larger society. In Stewart’s analogy, American society is the audience for whose love the Jewish American comedian strives. To stay with the image of the jester, he actively tries to stay in the king’s favor. The example above is surely self-deprecating. Stewart portrays himself and Jewish Americans in general as a dependent and immature child. The critique of the potentially hostile society, however, does not sting, because in the end his joke leaves American society in the role of the loving mother, who is unlikely to ever desert her children. It is precisely with this kind of imagery that Stewart repeatedly asserts his patriotism, which in turn allows him to criticize his country. And in much the same way, Stewarts ironic ‘outings’ as Jewish allow him to scrutinize Jewish identity. Something he does to a degree which often wanders beyond the comfort zone of many who genuinely worry about the public image of the community. Of all ways in which one could identify as Jewish, Stewart seems to enact his membership of ‘the tribe’ with a claim on some of the most stereotypically Jewish characteristics and mannerisms. Stewart seems to effectively utilize the tension of Jewish American double- consciousness by positioning himself as the insider in both cases. Bial contrasts this with the performances of Sid Caesar or Woody Allen, which featured a humor of the excluded: “Stewart is doing something different – he’s joking about being an insider, not an outsider.” (139). Stewart fervently claims the position of an insider, which allows him to tell jokes that have an educational function for the in-group, but also for the outsider. He successfully maneuvers the focus from one side to the other. Thus, the Jewish jokes are not necessarily about the Jews, but about the accusations they are confronted with. “If Jews control the media, why don’t we give ourselves better press?” (Stewart quoted in Bial 135). With poignant questions like this one, Stewart shifts from the perspective of a supposedly all-American culture to a Jewish point of view. The joke is no longer on the Jews alone, and neither is it a merely retaliating attack on a subjugating Other. The stereotype itself is ridiculed. So apart from their entertaining function, many of Stewart’s jokes can be argued to have an educational function with multiple directions. In the example above, the question is apparently directed towards Jewish Americans. If they were the only intended recipients of the message, it could be interpreted as a call not to hide their light under a bushel. However, its underlying message addresses the American public as a whole. The real question is: “Don’t you see the paradox between this stereotype’s claim and the fact of it being widely propagated?” The irony of this question seems less bitter, as it functions not only as a coping-strategy which expresses ambivalence and
23 Unity or Diversity
eases tension. The ability to see “one’s struggles and the struggles of one’s identity group with a certain reflexivity or critical distance [allows Jewish comedians] to repurpose anti-Jewish stereotypes as a critique of anti-Semitism, allowing us to assert Jewish pride” (Bial 135).
2.2. A Jewish Take on Religion and Politics Stewart’s comedy is driven by a sense of powerlessness and displacement, which he does not see as a unique feature of the ethnic minority: “My comedy is about anything that, when I was growing up, made me feel different or disenfranchised in any way” (Rogak 2). Yet, Stewart's Jewishness is not merely a side note within The Daily Show, it is a central theme of many of Stewart's jokes and routines. In fact, Stewart constantly reminding his audience of his Jewishness has almost become a running gag in itself, as Stewart has repeatedly “referred to himself as 'Jewey Von Jewstein' and cracked wise on Jewish noses, circumcision, anti-Semites, Jews who play baseball (a short list) Israel as 'Heebie Land' and his grandmother at Passover” (Gillick 2). This openness about Jewish identity has for a long time been quite unusual within the American media and entertainment industry. Throughout the 20th century many Jewish actors, film makers and other public figures actually anglicized their names in anticipation, not only of people who would have difficulties pronouncing them, but also of gentile fellow- citizens who might bring forward accusations and myths surrounding the Jew- controlled media. In their effort to establish their work as “all-American”, American Jews often hid the Jewish part of their identity (Bial 134-143). By now, a counter movement has developed that encourages 'outings' and resulted in a variety of online platforms which provide information and create long lists of Jewish celebrities. In his article “Jew Media”, Henry Bial argues that this new trend of “caring about who is Jewish and who isn't is a way to enact one's membership in the imagined community of American Jews” (139). At this front Jon Stewart is more than an example of the phenomenon. He actually amplified this trend and still serves as a role model for a rediscovered 'Jewish Pride' (Gillick 8). Stewart’s biography puts his Jewish identity beyond doubt, but deviates from the Jewish role-model of the practicing Judaist. The second son of a Jewish mother and father, Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz was born in 1962 in New York. The family soon moved out to Lawrenceville, a New Jersey suburb in an area with few Jewish inhabitants and a less than vibrant Jewish community at the time. Apart from the occasional visit to the synagogue on high holidays, the Leibowitz family raised their boys in a fairly secular manner. Hence, Stewart’s perspective on the question of Jewish identity is that of a non-religious member: “I don’t have a problem with religion. . . . I
24 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
think that religion provides a lot of people with comfort and solace, but you know, I think what people who aren’t that religious object to is [the belief] that the only way to find values is through religion” (Rogak 100). Stewart’s stance on strict religious orthodoxy seemed to be clear soon after he started to host The Daily Show in 1999, when he commented on an event at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Orthodox Jews had protested a group of Reform rabbis, because it consisted of women and men who were praying there together. Ultra-Orthodox Jews . . . got all Jewier-than-thou when they discovered that a handful of Reform Jews, who actually allow their women to do something other than breed and cook, also had the chutzpah to be praying nearby. Ultra-Orthodox Jews believe themselves superior to other Jews, claiming the word of God was handed to them directly – right before he handed us big noses and took away all our athletic ability. (“This Just In - Talmud Slinging” min 00:10) However, Stewart has also defended the Orthodox community on another occasion. In a 2011 episode The Daily Show ridiculed initiatives which fought against the erection of an eruv area15 on Long Island (“The Thin Jew Line”). The virtual invisibility of the thin eruv wires next to the power supply lines, along which they would be installed, made it difficult for the opponents of the eruv to find arguments against it. To be sure, The Daily Show’s report also emphasized the absurdity of an eruv for gentiles and other Jewish groups. Yet, the main focus stayed on the irony which resulted from the fierce rejection of the idea by a Jewish group who would still claim to be the open-minded party in the conflict. Which side The Daily Show was on became obvious in the conversation of their reporter Wyatt Cenac with local businessman Charles Gottesman. CENAC. What is the problem with letting them have a string around the town? GOTTESMAN. It will attract many, many Orthodox Jews. . . . One of them tried to explain to me very loudly that she could not shop on the Sabbath and then I said to her: “Take your groyser tokhes”, which means very large behind, “outside of my store”. CENAC. That just seems rude on their part. GOTTESMAN. Exactly, they are a very close-minded, little group. COMMENTATOR. That’s why Charles and the other ‘open-minded’ Jews created an organization to keep Orthodox Jews out of their town. (“The Thin Jew Line” min. 01:26)
15 Strictly observant Orthodox Jews are forbidden to transfer objects between the private and the public sphere on the Sabbath. However, a formerly public area around which an eruv is erected technically belongs to the private sphere. This theological construct allows Orthodox Jews to carry certain things outside their home without breaking religious law. Otherwise certain chapters of the Talmud would prohibit them from performing simple tasks, such as taking their keys with them or pushing strollers on the Sabbath. While the traditional eruv has to consist of walls and doorways, it is often substituted by a thin wire and wooden posts for reasons of practicality.
25 Unity or Diversity
The comparison of these two clips demonstrates that it is not unusual for the show to take a side in the conflicts it covers. Its humor supports those who are portrayed as the oppressed, or in some way disenfranchised. Orthodox tradition is defended, where it is seen as a matter of religious freedom, it is dismissed and frowned upon, where it seems to restrict the religious freedom of others. This contrast may also indicate a development which the show had undergone over the course of twelve years, adopting more nuanced approaches towards certain sub-identities. As a matter of fact, the contributions of black or female writers and performers were almost none when the show started out. They increased only gradually over the years (cf. Rogak 142-46). Stewart was well aware of the homogeneity within his “boys’ club” (144) also with respect to Jewish identity. He commented on The Daily Show’s success at the Emmy ceremony in 2005: “When I first said that I wanted us to put together a late-night comedy writing team that would only be 80 percent Ivy League-educated Jews, people thought I was crazy. They said you need 90, 95 percent. But we proved 'em wrong” (Bial 139). The juxtaposition of the two clips makes also clear another difficulty: that of distinguishing Jon Stewart from The Daily Show as a collective body. While the 1999 clip gives the impression that Stewart is uttering his very own take on the protests at the Western Wall, it is important to keep in mind that he has a large staff of writers behind him. On the other hand, the clip about the eruv-discussion in 2011 features mostly other team members of the show. Yet, it is definitely based on an editorial concept Stewart had great influence on. Just how much he changed the character of The Daily Show is evident from the difference in tone, which critics noticed soon after Stewart had taken over. Where his predecessor Craig Kilborn had never questioned the work of his writing staff and celebrated a kind of humor which was often demeaning, Stewart sat down with his writers right from the start. Rogak gives an example of how Stewart criticized the double-standards of the show which he intended to change: “[He] laid down the law the first time he hung out in the writers’ room, . . . clarifying the mixed signals the show was sending. ‘Half the jokes were about Barbie as a bad role model for girls, and the other half were about how ugly the spokesmodel was’, said the new host” (93). The result was a show which was not only more consistent in its messages, but also unafraid of having a clear standing on political issues. Stewart “made no bones about the fact that his overall aim was to convey the news through the filter of his worldview” (ibid.). After a few seasons at The Daily Show, he had established himself not only as the show's host, but as a political commentator. The coverage of the Presidential election in 2000 had an ever larger audience flock to Comedy Central's project “Indecision 2000”. Its name proved to be more than fitting,
26 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
as Florida's ballots had to be counted over and over again. Finally, the Supreme Court ordered a halt, which meant that George W. Bush won the state and the presidency. The new president and his staff would prove to be the main subject of Stewart's criticism and the perfect targets for many of his jokes. But before the antagonism towards the new government could fully evolve, the country was shaken to the core by the terror attacks on September 11 with Bush being only eight months into his first term. For the following days most TV shows went off the air. When The Daily Show returned on September 20, it was clear that it could not start off with business as usual. Stewart opened the show with a speech, which resonated far beyond his immediate viewership. Interrupted by long pauses to regain composure, an obviously shaken Jon Stewart addressed his audience: “They said to get back to work and, uh, uh, there were no jobs available for a man in the fetal position under his desk crying, which I gladly would have taken. So I come back here” (“September 11, 2001” min 01:31). He went on to talk about the privilege of living in a country which tolerates open satire. After portraying the United States as an open society and contrasting it with its enemies, Stewart concluded: Any fool can blow something up, any fool can destroy, but to see these guys, these fire fighters, these policemen and people from all over the country, literally with buckets, rebuilding – that is extraordinary. And that's why we've already won. They can't... It's light. It's democracy. It's... We've already won. They can't shut that down. They live in chaos. And chaos, it can't sustain itself. It never could. It's too easy and it's too unsatisfying. The view from my apartment was the World Trade Center. [pause] And now it's gone. They attacked it, this symbol of American ingenuity and strength and labor and imagination and commerce and it is gone. But you know what the view is now? - The Statue of Liberty. The view from the south of Manhattan is now the Statue of Liberty. You can't beat that. (min 06:40) The monologue captured the emotional constitution of the US, when the nation was in a state of shock and looking for explanations of the recent tragedy. What Stewart offered was not an explanation, it was barely short of a collective therapy, not only for the viewers, but for the team of The Daily Show as well: “It is something . . . we do for ourselves so that we can drain whatever abscess is in our hearts” (min 00:56). And repeatedly, Stewart described the show and the process of making it as “cathartic” (Rogak 110 and 158). The function of humor as a coping strategy was discussed above as a feature of marginalized identities. In the shadow of the terror attacks, however, people of different sub-identities suddenly had a shared traumatic experience. “Whatever barriers we've put up, are gone, even if it's just momentary. And we're judging people by, not the color of their skin, but the content of their character” (“September 11, 2001” min 06:05). While this experience was without doubt more traumatic to people living at or near the sights than, say, people living on the West
27 Unity or Diversity
Coast, it still strengthened and emphasized the common national identity. The people who died in the attacks were targeted because they were by and large US citizens, hence there evolved a strong feeling of solidarity within the imagined community of Americans. The imaginary became more of a social reality, as a hostile Other had accepted it as a meaningful category and acted against it. American nationality is clearly no marginalized identity within the US or globally, but the community responded to the appellation by the Other. By killing almost 3,000 people and destroying symbols of institutional and financial power, the terrorists also attacked the identity these people bore and the buildings represented. Rendering the hegemonic power helpless, strengthened the meaning of its predominant identity. The attacks added relevance to being American. They resulted in a rise of nationalism and assertions of American pride. In this atmosphere, Stewart's speech and other demonstrations of his patriotism gained him the recognition of a trusted public figure. However, Stewart did not establish himself as the late-night show host of all Americans. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, 74 percent of The Daily Show's audience are between 18 and 49 years old and 62 percent describe themselves as supporters of gay rights (“Americans Spending More Time Following the News” 67 and 59). This makes Stewart's audience younger and politically more progressive than the vast majority of American TV audiences. Although Stewart has never officially supported political campaigns by either of the two major parties, his political views are not only clear, but also very influential – or as Hadley Freeman put it in a recent article about Stewart in The Guardian: “Over time, Stewart has evolved from a satirist to a broadcaster celebrated as the voice of US liberalism, the one who will give the definitive progressive take on a story.” This description is probably more accurate than the New York Time's speculation that Stewart may be “the most trusted man in America” (Kakutani). Such a claim may indeed be “a kind of a blue-state perspective and youth perspective” (Lemann quoted in Gillick 8). With growing success of The Daily Show the guest list became more illustrious. The show had started out hosting mostly actors and musicians who came on the show to promote their latest film or album and after a few years, politicians began to visit in order to promote their agendas especially during election season. While the majority of Stewart's political visitors were Democrats (Rogak 117), his jokes were directed mostly towards the conservative side of the isle. As another study by the Pew Research Center found: “Stewart’s humor targeted Republicans more than three times as often as Democrats. The Bush Administration alone was the focus of 22% of the segments” (quoted in Rogak 155). The time frame of this observation was July to November of 2007, so the fact that the White House and both Houses of Congress were controlled by the Republican party
28 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
might serve as an explanation for the focus on their policies. However, there was no similar criticism of the Democrat administration when Barack Obama took office about a year later. If Democrats were ridiculed, it was often for not living up to the expectations of their supporters, rarely for any policies in which they differed from their Republican counterparts. Taking a look at how Jon Stewart criticizes liberals, it becomes clear that he does not beat about the bush when it comes to his ideology. In an exemplary clip from 2006, a year of midterm elections in the US, Republicans produced a short Star Wars parody called “Elections Wars”, in which they referred to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat House Minority she was leading as “Darth Nancy and the evil Democrat empire”. Stewart's comment was poignant: “Evil Democrat empire? I got news for you. If we gonna do the Star Wars analogy, the Democrats are at best Ewoks. [Republicans] control the White House, both Houses of Congress, the Supreme Court. You're not a bunch of ragtag rebels fighting the empire. You're the empire!” (“Headlines - Use the Force” min 01:14). The comparison was not flattering for Democrats either, because the Ewoks in George Lucas' Star Wars are a race of clumsy teddy bears, who are barely able to support the Jedi Knights, who are the true heroes of the story. However, Stewart's twist on the analogy has them fighting on the good side. The flaw of the Democrat Party seems to be incompetence, but in contrast with the GOP, they are portrayed as having the right intentions. Stewart stood by his ideals, early on. He admired the American socialist Eugene W. Debs (Rogak 21) and acknowledged: “I have a tendency to lean toward the underdog, which I assume is the liberal perspective” (104). And he shares these ideals with a large majority of his Jewish compatriots. The liberalism of Jewish Americans is in fact so pronounced that it has become an extensively researched phenomenon. S. Cohen and Liebman argue that many of the liberal attitudes of Jewish Americans are not too different from those held by non-Jewish Americans of a similar socio-economic status. However, their level of identification with the Democratic Party is higher than could be expected even with respect to their residential or educational background.
[H]istorical circumstance combined with minority group interests best explain why Jews identify as Democrats far more than would be predicted on the basis of their political attitudes. That is, Jews have historically seen themselves as a vulnerable minority group and have seen the Democratic party as the party more favorable to their group interests. (S. Cohen and Liebman 425) Like 76% of Jewish Americans, Stewart voted for the Democratic candidate John Kerry in the 2004 presidential elections (Maisel and Forman 153). The fact that he said so publicly and ahead of the election sparked a lot of criticism and was often interpreted as a semi-official endorsement by the show (Rogak 167). When Stewart was asked later
29 Unity or Diversity
if he considered his announcement a mistake, he replied: “If you watched this show and didn't know I was voting for Kerry you're clearly not paying attention to the show. But if you think that by announcing it that I've lost my credibility as a comedian, I just didn't think we had any credibility to lose” (O'Clery). Even before this incident, Stewart's political stance had never qualified as neutral or politically indifferent.
2.3. Deconstructing Myths in the Media Stewart's comedy is rooted in a somewhat detached observation of the media industry of which he is a part. Describing this approach to the media, Stephen Colbert explained in an interview: “Jon deconstructs the news. . . . Every time I ever worked with him aa . . . he tried to perceive what was the true intention of the person speaking, left or right, whether or not it was something he agreed with. Because he wanted to be able to honestly mock” (“Stephen Colbert” min. 02:32-04:02). To a limited extent Stewart's transformation of news content into comedy is itself based on sincere textual analysis. Ott and Mack describe the different strands of critical media studies as having four things in common: “their skeptical attitude, humanistic approach, political assessment, and commitment to social justice” (15). Jon Stewart is no scholar of this field, yet there is evidence that his comedy qualifies as critical media study in the most basic sense of meeting these characteristics. It is built on a foundation of skepticism towards the function of politics and media in American society. The Daily Show's assessments of the media are political by nature, because the judgements are evident in its ridicule and usually expose in whose service certain messages are conveyed. Stewart's main intention may be to provide his audience with a comic relief from the 'real news', but he barely hides his ambitions to change certain deficits of America's social systems. However, The Daily Show definitely lacks a humanistic approach if this means a clear methodology, which is systematically applied and which explicitly states its findings. In order to gain an understanding of whether Stewart actually “deconstructs the news”, one approach promises to be particularly useful - Roland Barthes' concept of myth. In his book Mythologies, Barthes describes various cultural phenomena from children's toys to media coverage of the aristocracy. This collection of observations is followed by a theoretical framework for his observations, which he names “Myth Today”. In it, Barthes introduces myth as “a second-order semiological system” (113). The first-order system on which myth builds, is language according to Ferdinand de Saussure. For Saussure language is “a system of signs” (Culler 19), which are constituted in turn by a signifier and a signified. The former is the sign's actual code, the letters or sounds which are produced. The latter is its concept, the mental representation to which the code refers. Barthes suggests that, for the purpose of myth,
30 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
images should also be treated as language signs. The Saussurean sign can serve as a second-order signifier in turn. Thus, the linguistic sign becomes itself the mere code of a mythical sign. For this transformation or, more accurately, this double-function, Barthes uses his own terminology: The linguistic sign is the meaning of a word. As the mythical signifier it is the form of a myth. The second-order signified is a new concept and “the motivation which causes the myth to be uttered” (117). It is meant to be appropriated by a certain audience. Just like the signifiers used in the English language can only evoke the right signified in the minds of English-speakers, a mythical form relies on the associations of a target audience and its culture. For an example, take the graphic of a turning globe as it is used in the intro for BBC World News Today.
Image 1: Globe graphics from the intro clip of BBC World News Today. It is a pictorial example of how signs can serve as forms for myth. (www.bbc.com/news/uk-14452772)
The specific constellation of pixels in this image are the sign's signifier, which relates to a signified, the concept of world. The sign as a whole is used as the subject of myth. This means it can, in addition to its status of a meaning, also be a mere form, for the benefit of a mythical concept. The intention in this case would be for the form to signify omnipresence. By showing the world as a whole, the news program claims to be everywhere. Hence, events which are not covered are left out, because they are of no importance to the world. The reason for any omissions cannot lie with the news program, which has already shown the viewers the entire world16. By showing it in
16 The same myth is told by pairing the news with its definite article. What the audience is shown are not 'some' news, but a complete presentation of all events worth reporting.
31 Unity or Diversity
motion, a temporal dimension is added to the myth of omnipresence. Another mythological reading is to see the sign as a signifier for sovereignty. The perspective of looking down on the world suggests a sense of superiority. A news program which uses such a symbol is also above of any personal involvement in the happenings. It shows the world 'as it is', and thus, it denies the formative power it exerts on the viewers' concept of the world. On the contrary, sovereignty is even promised to the viewers, who are enabled by the news to 'stay on top of things'. The world is handed to them like a golden orb to a royal heir. It is served on a TV screen instead of a silver plate, but with an invitation to share in the program's mythical power by consuming it. The concepts of being everywhere and in absolute control could even be merged to the concept of god-like power or deity. Thus, the world in BBC's World News Today continues a long tradition. The same myth is told by the medieval and baroque paintings in which God the Father rests his arm on the world. In each case, the myth appears as a timeless truth and hides the fact that it is a human fabrication. In fact, “myth has the task of giving an historical intention a natural justification, and making contingency appear eternal” (Barthes 142). Barthes distinguishes three different ways of approaching myths (127). By focusing on the form as an empty signifier, the first-order sign is reduced to a symbol, i.e. the globe in the introduction to BBC's news program is completely filled by sovereignty and omnipresence. This first perspective is that of the person constructing the myth. By regarding the sign as an inseparable whole of form and meaning, the perspective becomes that of a person reading the myth. The sign world becomes “the very presence” (ibid.) of sovereignty. Finally, if the form and the meaning are seen in harsh contrast, the myth is made explicit. The intentions of the myth are exposed and the turning globe becomes the mere alibi of the powers which are signified by it. “This type of focusing is that of the mythologist: he deciphers the myth, he understands a distortion” (ibid.). Every episode of The Daily Show starts with these staples of numerous news programmes: a dramatic signature tune and the bombastic graphics of a turning globe (cf. “The Daily Show: Full Episodes”). In this context, however, the signs appear displaced. What follows this introduction does not claim the sovereignty or omnipresence of the news programme. What follows is a comedy show which is divided by two commercial breaks into two performance parts and an interview with a public figure or celebrity. The first part has Jon Stewart comment on the day's headlines. Although Stewart often talks in the serious tone of the news anchor, he does not deliver the news with the certainty of stating the facts. His comments are full of a pretended insecurity and incredulity. His outbreaks of laughter and self-mockery display a humor
32 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
of the oppressed, which is all but the opposite of a claim to sovereign power. The second part of the show is usually a sketch with one of the show's fake correspondents. They often stand in front of a green screen onto which a scene is projected, showing Cairo, Baghdad or whichever city they are supposed to report from. As these static backgrounds are of low quality, they barely hide the fact that the scene is not authentic. The correspondents are only pretending to pretend to be abroad. Hence, the myth of omnipresence of usual news programs is contrasted with the acute limitedness of the studio. The Daily Show's correspondents are usually introduced with the impressive titles which many real correspondents are given. Examples range from “Senior White House Correspondent” and “Senior Middle East Correspondent” to obvious parodies such as “Senior Married Correspondent” and “Senior Beyoncé Correspondent”17. In these pieces, the correspondent's role is often personally involved or openly ignorant of their supposed area of expertise. Here, the sign which serves the myth of authority seems alienated, because the myth cannot continue to function due to an intentional breakdown in its performance. As the form is separated from the concept, what remains is the meaning (e.g. the linguistic sign Senior White House Correspondent). On the level of myth, the empty form is now separated from the concept (authority) and can no longer be filled by it. It is important to note that the parody does not alienate the myth, it only makes visible the alienation which occurred while the mythical concept had deformed the meaning (Barthes 121). The graphics of the turning globe are no more displaced at The Daily Show than they are at the beginning of any actual news program, but here the myth is made explicit and its intentions are exposed instead of naturalized. As the audience watches the fake correspondent, its perspective shifts from that of the reader to that of the mythologist. They see Senior White House Correspondent as the mere alibi of authority, not as the concept's immediate presence. The same effect, which this breakdown of performance has on the myth, can be achieved by over-performing the myth. If the actor lends the gravitas of tone or the sensationalist language of the TV reporter to an evidently trivial, ridiculous subject, the myths these signs usually convey are deconstructed. Whether the signs are words, movements or images, all kinds of texts can easily be filled by myth. So, while Stewart's genre of news satire is based on a demythologization of 'the news', it will still deploy numerous myths of its own (cf. chapter 5.1.). The show's success has rendered it more independent from its advertisers than many genuine news organizations when it comes to content (cf. Rogak 160), yet
17These examples are taken from the clips “Wait, wait... Don't tell him!”, “Gone with the WMD: Syrian Government Open for Business”, “Big Speech 6: America's Couple” and “Beywatch: Limousine Sex” respectively.
33 Unity or Diversity
its mains purposes are still to make people laugh in order to make money. Time and again, news anchors and journalists criticized Stewart for not living up to the standards he demanded of their programs. To such critique Stewart usually reacted by explaining that his ambition was not to provide journalism and once led him to argue that “The Daily Show is one of the most responsible news organizations, because we're not pretending to be news in the first place. Our one rule is no faking” (ibid. 91). Stewart, and with him The Daily Show, became increasingly outspoken as the US government started to prepare the war in Iraq. His staunch opposition to the invasion plans of the Bush administration was evident in many episodes during both terms of the Republican presidency and beyond. During this time, The Daily Show also began to serve as a source of information. A main reason for this development was the failure of much of the established news media to openly question the government's course, as Robert Thompson points out: “When all the news guys were walking on eggshells, Jon was hammering those questions about WMDs18. . . . That's the kind of thing CNN and CBS should have been doing” (Gillick 5). Stewart criticized this lack of scrutiny on the part of the news media on a regular basis. As news satire The Daily Show did not only engage with the content of that day's news, but also with the way it was reported, especially by the twenty-four-hour news networks. “The news now is like a children's soccer game.”, Stewart once complained, “Whatever the main focus of the day is where they go; it's not about territory and positioning. When one kid has the ball, everyone runs over there. And then he kicks it and everyone goes over there” (quoted in Rogak 90). The only big player on US television which Stewart has excluded from this criticism was the channel Fox News. Clearly positioned to support a conservative agenda, Fox provided different reasons for Stewart’s attention. Its popularity among conservatives as well as the ideological distance between Fox News and The Daily Show made it a formidable target of ridicule. The channel's slogan “fair and balanced” implies that other news networks are less so – a claim which is often reiterated in Fox's individual programs. As a matter of fact, Fox News regularly airs content which is fundamentally different from the 'mainstream media' (cf. Berger). The channel's agenda is skeptical of climate change and staunchly opposed to the Affordable Care Act. It has aired fraudulent theories about Barack Obama's nationality and religion as well as segments with ringing names such as “The War on Christmas19”, in which the channel articulated an anger at the usage of the word holidays instead of
18 weapons of mass destruction
19 Note that such drastic choice of words is not unique in US politics and media. For example, Democrats used the expression “War on Women” to describe certain pieces of legislation which aimed to restrict women's access to abortion and contraceptives.
34 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Christmas (e.g.: wishing somebody “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas”). Many examples of the above positions were covered and satirized by Jon Stewart, who repeatedly referred to the Fox News Channel as “Bullshit Mountain” (e.g. “Chaos on Bulls**t Mountain”). On the other hand, Stewart's resentment towards less controversial news channels is just as strong. It was on display most prominently when Stewart used his appearance on CNN's Crossfire in October 2004 to criticize the format of the show as well as its anchors. The idea behind Crossfire was that of a debate show, for which two pundits were opposing each other on the political topics of the day and being interviewed by two hosts with equally clear political affiliations. Usually, this would mean that one pair of them was debating from a liberal point of view, the other one from a conservative. Stewart, who was expected to advertise his new book when he came on the show, instead accused Crossfire and similar shows of “hurting America” and being “partisan hackery” (“CNN Crossfire: Jon Stewart's America”). Tucker Carlson, one of the hosts, responded by criticizing Stewart's interview with presidential candidate John Kerry as “suck[ing] up” to Kerry, which lead Stewart to comment: “You know it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility. I didn't realize that . . . the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity.” And he went on to doubt Crossfire's status: “I would love to see a debate show. But [claiming that Crossfire is a debate show] is like saying pro-wrestling is a show about athletic competition. . . . [T]his is theater” (ibid.). This comparison was also an allusion to the way the debates were staged. The background screen is divided into a red and a blue half and at the beginning a voice introduces the liberal and conservative debaters with “on the left” and “on the right” respectively (ibid.). These aspects deliberately stage a situation similar to a wrestling ring. The signs are loaded with the myth of dualism. Four years earlier Stewart had already voiced similar criticism: “These shows are all about conflict. Whatever the situation is, they take a liberal pundit and a conservative pundit – the more extreme the better – and let them yell at each other. It doesn't reflect anyone's opinion. It doesn't matter” (quoted in Rogak 111). A few months after Stewart's appearance on the show, Crossfire was cancelled by CNN's new president Jonathan Klein who “agree[d] wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise” (Carter). The Crossfire anecdote illustrates that Stewart is rather serious about his public role as a media critic. At the same time, however, Stewart brought forward an argument which he has used repeatedly to deflect counter-attacks by those he criticizes. The Daily Show, Stewart often argues, should not be held to the same standards as the shows on actual news channels. “You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making
35 Unity or Diversity
crank phone calls.”, Stewart countered Carlson on Crossfire (“CNN Crossfire: Jon Stewart's America”). The longer his career prospered and the more successful he was, the more often Stewart had to argue that he was neither a journalist nor a partisan activist for the Democratic Party. In an interview with Chris Wallace, Stewart emphasized the latter point: “I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, but the thing that . . . conservative activists will never understand is that Hollywood - yeah, they're liberal, but that's not their primary motivating force. I'm not an activist, I'm a comedian” (“Exclusive: Jon Stewart on 'Fox News Sunday'” min. 6:58). In a way, Stewart retreats into the role of the jester, who is inferior to the ones he is mocking and who in turn would ridicule themselves by comparing themselves with the fool. When Stewart insists that he and his team just “sit in the back of the country and make wisecracks” (“September 11, 2001” min. 02:38), he refuses to identify with the political activism or news media. In taking on the powerful, the jester does not have to speak with their authority. By caricaturing their authority, he may actually expose the myths which legitimate it. The status of the insider is not necessary to utter criticism in the case of the powerful, but by saying 'We're just the fool', Stewart may also trivialize the impact of a show, which in 2010 mobilized more than 200,000 people for his “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear20” in Washington D.C. (Montopoli). It was mentioned before that the position of the insider allows Jon Stewart to articulate much harsher criticism on certain subjects than most of his gentile colleagues would probably dare to. “When it comes to Jewish and Israeli politics, he stomps where WASPier comedians fear to tread” (Gillick 2). In response, many staunch supporters of the Israeli government and proponents of a more conservative Judaism have tried to play down Stewart's Jewishness. In an effort to discredit his views, they aimed to negate his status as a 'true member' of the tribe. Good examples of this stratagem are the frequent references to the fact that Stewart had his name changed. In his interview for The Guardian the born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz complained: “So whenever I criticize Israel's actions it's [he puts on a Yiddishy accent]21 'He's changed his name! He's not a Jew! He hates himself!' And I'm like, 'I hate myself for a lot of reasons, but not because I'm Jewish.'” (Freeman). Stewart's exaggeration aside, these accusations illustrate how the status of an insider is considered vital by many members of the imagined 'Jewish community', in order to legitimize criticism. But even with that status, the public
20 This protest event was also promoted by Stephen Colbert and his show The Colbert Report. Colbert is a former staffer of Stewart's, whose most popular shtick was his parody impression of a conceited conservative, hence the events double-naming.
21Comment in brackets is part of the original article;
36 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
reactions to commenting on or taking a side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are often quite strong and emotional. This is a fact, which The Daily Show satirized in the summer of 2014. [Full shot of Stewart sitting behind his news anchor's desk.] STEWART. We'll start tonight in the Middle East, where Israel... [Close-up of Stewart, as the four correspondents Michael Che, Jason Jones, Jordan Klepper and Jessica Williams pop up from behind Stewart's news desk with angry faces and start shouting at him. During the following scene Stewart opens his mouth at times as if to answer them, but finally gives up.] JONES. What Israel is not supposed to defend itself? WILLIAMS. Oh yeah, if Mexico bombed Texas, would... KLEPPER [shouting over Williams]. What other countries are held to the same standards as Israel? [The four of them are shouting at the same time, so that barely anything can be understood. Snippets of the conversation can be understood such as 'destroy our territory' and 'democracy in the Middle East'. Finally, someone's last comment is bleeped22 before all of them disappear behind the desk. After a second Klepper pops up again.] KLEPPER. Self-hating Jew! [Full shot. Audience laughter. Klepper goes down again.] STEWART [nervously playing with his pen]. That was weird. [Audience laughter.] Anyway, what I was saying was last Thursday saw the start of a new ground offensive launched by Israel. [He cringes in anticipation. Close-up. The four correspondents pop up again and shout at him all at once. Nothing can be understood. Throughout this part Stewart looks very tired. All of them disappear once more. Klepper pops up again.] KLEPPER. Religion! Religion! [Audience laughter. Klepper goes down again. Full shot.] STEWART. Uhm, holy shit [bleeped]! Look, obviously there are many strong opinions on this issue, but just merely mentioning Israel, or questioning in any way the effectiveness or humanity of Israel's policies is [emphasizing his words with both hands] not the same thing as being pro-Hamas. [Close-up as the correspondents pop up once more.] WILLIAMS. So you're against murdered children? [The four are shouting at the same time. Through the clamor only Jason's repeated cries of “Free Gaza!” can be understood. The four go down. Klepper pops up again.]
22Cable networks in the US are forbidden to broadcast certain expletives. Consequently, those words are covered by a bleeping sound before the material is aired. However, most channels have taken to drowning out only a part of the word. For reasons of readability I will spell out these words fully and mark them as '[bleeped]'.
37 Unity or Diversity
KLEPPER. Zionist pig! [goes down again]. (“We need to talk about Israel” min. 00:19) The entire scene is an example of the already discussed shift in perspective, which Stewart achieves on The Daily Show. While the heated public debate on Israel's policies goes far beyond the boundaries of the Jewish American community, its implications for the community are a focus of Stewart's ironic portray. By being called a “self-hating Jew” or a “Zionist pig” Stewart's Jewish identity is introduced to the scene. The demeaning references are the last word in two of the three staged interruptions. They are blatantly anti-Semitic and, not coincidentally, they serve as punchlines. By exaggerating the response of the Other (the correspondents), it becomes clearer that many arguments in this heated discussion are in fact attacks on the individual's (Stewart's) identity. In the clip, Stewart does not even change the position he might have on Israel's ground offensive, but a minimal shift in his wording is sufficient to change the response from one extreme to the other. The bi-polar identification as either “self-hating Jew” or “Zionist pig” caricatures the divisiveness of a discussion which for many Jewish Americans is a variation on the theme of being either 'not Jewish enough' or 'too Jewish'. As there is no option of staying in-between or breaking the strict dichotomy, the individual is threatened out of the discourse and effectively silenced. In The Daily Show, Stewart acknowledges this situation by suggesting at the end of the scene: “Why don't we just talk about something lighter, like Ukraine” (min. 01:49). Yet, while Stewart, as the part he has in this scene, proclaims his capitulation in front of the aggressive debate, Jon Stewart, the comedian, has actually made his statement, not on the actual conflict, but on the way it is discussed. His critique of the public discourse on Israel and his critique of Crossfire are the same in nature. Stewart's discomfort results from being torn between the pundits of two camps who have to be in staunch opposition. In one case the conflict is used to create a spectacle for the audience, in the other to silence even the mildest criticism. Stewart's claim that shows like Crossfire have a formative influence on public discourse does not seem too far a stretch in this light. This is what he means by “hurting America” (“Jon Stewart's America”). Jewish identity is also brought into discussions by those who do not belong to the community, but for the same reasons. A vivid example of this is an interview for The O'Reilly Factor in April 2011: O'REILLY. You're not afraid that Iran gets a nuclear weapon and they cause all kinds of havoc? STEWART. There's a lot of things to be afraid of in the world. I asked a guy... O'REILLY [interrupting him]. You're a Jewish guy, right? STEWART. What?
38 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
O'REILLY. You're a Jewish guy. STEWART [ironically]. Who told him? [towards backstage] Son of a bitch! Did you tell him? [turns back to O'Reilly] What gave it away? Was it my 'happy Hanukkah' when I walked in? There is a war on Hanukkah in this country, Mister! (“Entire Jon Stewart Interview” min. 29:07)
William J. “Bill” O'Reilly, is one of the most popular hosts on US television. His show is the top-rated flagship of Fox News and hits the mark of three million viewers on a regular basis (A. J. Katz). The question on Stewart's Jewish identity comes up in the interview precisely when he refuses to see the immediate threat in the negotiations with Iran. It indicates that the speaker sees a causal relation between someone's social identity and the political views they are supposed to hold. On the textual level, O'Reilly asks questions, but on the level of discourse they are not a request of information, but a judgement that can be read as: “You should oppose a deal with Iran, because you are Jew.” Rather than addressing his interviewer's assumptions directly, Stewart spontaneously satirizes the fact that his identity is brought up in this context. His Jewishness being a widely known fact, even among an audience which is rather different from his own, Stewart mockingly treats O'Reilly's comment as an unwelcome outing. He even underlines being open about his identity by claiming that he used one of the most definite cultural markers – wishing someone a happy Hanukkah. At this point, Stewart also performs the stereotype of the anxious and overly-sensitive Jew. In doing so, he assumes the role which O'Reilly would assign to any 'proper' Jewish identity. With his tongue-in-cheek performance Stewart actually mirrors the stereotype of the Jewish neurotic which was evoked by O'Reilly. Thus, he emphasizes his Jewishness, but refuses to make the explicit connection between identity and politics. Jewish humor goes beyond mere self-deprecation, in that it may be used to distance oneself from the rest of the group or criticize some unwanted behavior of the group which is perceived as typical. In order to successfully exercise this former function of a joke, the speaker has to generate him- or herself as an outsider, whereas the latter function requires that they assure the listener of their status as an insider of the community. Because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish these functions, the speaker may feel the need to explicitly mention their Jewish identity in order to clarify their motives. Jon Stewart regularly jokes about being Jewish and hence wears his identity on his sleeve. He has taken on Jewish Orthodoxy and Reform Judaism alike, demonstrating that his ridicule was not based on how certain groups live their Jewish identities, but how willing they were to tolerate forms of enacting Jewishness which are different from their own. But Stewart's Jewish identity is also brought into play, by the people he mocks and who sometimes view the liberal slant of his comedy as political activism. His critique of Israel's policies (or acceptance of Democrat foreign
39 Unity or Diversity
policies which are not condoned by the Israeli government) is considered a deplorable and particularly 'Jewish self-hatred'23, which can consequently be portrayed as the opposite of Jewish pride. Thus, limiting or denying someone's Jewishness can be an attempt to mark their critique as irrelevant or even anti-Semitic. In a similar way, critique of the government is sometimes decried as 'unpatriotic'. This is why Stewart's speech after the 9/11 terror attacks was relevant for the reception of his critique towards the Bush administration. Just as Jon Stewart, the Jew is entitled to a critical stance on common notions of Jewish identity, Jon Stewart the American patriot can legitimately give his stance on American politics. This fact might explain to a certain extent, why Stewart was expected to embrace the professional identity of the journalist or the news maker, which he has never done.
3. The Importance of Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu for Jewish Americans and US Politics The personal ties of Benjamin Netanyahu to the US go even beyond the usual ties between the United States and Israeli officials, which are historically strong ones. The first country to recognize the state of Israel, the US have since kept their status as Israel's principal ally and a vital protecting power. According to U.S. Department of State, they are “Israel's largest single trading partner” and provide it with “over $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing annually” (Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs). Israel and the US are also the home countries of what are by far the largest populations of Jewish citizens in the world. An estimated 4-8 million Americans are Jewish. A considerable number of them have relatives in Israel or are eligible for Israeli citizenship. And many who do not have these personal connections to Israel, would still expect their government to help the Jewish state when it is in need. Nationality as a dimension of Jewishness is not restricted to having an Israeli passport. It is a dimension which Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized by declaring in front of Jewish tourists: “This land is your birthright” (“PM Netanyahu at Taglit-Birthright Mega- Event” min. 01:31). Based on this premise, much of Netanyahu's policies are easier to understand. Still, his political agenda is not exactly popular with the majority of Jewish Americans, only 38% of whom believe the Israeli government is showing “a sincere effort to bring about a peace settlement with the Palestinians” (A Portrait 89). However, Netanyahu also has significant groups of supporters in the United States. He is supported not only by “Christian fundamentalists and shrill right-wing
23 For a concise critique of the academic and everyday usage of this theory see Paul Reitter's “The Jewish Self-Hatred Octopus”.
40 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Jewish groups”, as Broder noted in 1998 (90), but also by most of the Republican party and their electorate these days. And even if a good portion of American Jews dislike most of Netanyahu's policies, they would still express their solidarity with Israel on more fundamental questions. Broder dubs these questions “the so-called red lines of the U.S.-Israeli relationship – exerting pressure by withholding aid, military assistance and intelligence cooperation” (96). The prominence of Israel in US politics and the fervor with which campaigning politicians court for support in the Jewish community may come as a surprise, considering the tiny fraction of the electorate made up by Jewish Americans. However, there are reasons why both parties would probably not risk losing too much of the Jewish support to their contender. For one, Jewish Americans account for a larger portion of the population in important swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. Another, and probably even more important, reason are campaign finances, where Jewish Americans play a major role. “It is impossible to determine precisely the grand total contributed to only presidential candidates by individual Jewish donors, but it may well be as much or more than one third of all Democratic money and a lesser though still impressive percentage of the funds raised by Republicans” (Tobin). The issue is rather sensitive, as it is bound to nourish the anti- Semitic myths surrounding 'Jewish money' and its alleged control over the world. Yet, it is safe to say that the importance of Israel for US domestic politics is less a consequence of Jewish American influence per se than a result of the large share of Jewish Americans among those who are wealthy and willing to make political donations. Benjamin Netanyahu's biographical connection to the US definitely enhanced his understanding of its politics. At the age of seven, he moved to the US with his family after his father, the historian Benzion Netanyahu, had been denied a position at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The secular Jewish family settled near Philadelphia. Benjamin completed his education in the US, but delayed his college graduation in order to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during the 1967 Six-Day War. The war ended in a major success for the IDF and laid the foundation for their distinct reputation as a modern and effective military. After five years of military service, during which he earned the rank of a Captain, Netanyahu went on to study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at Harvard University. He earned his degrees within record time, despite another interruption when he went to Israel to fight in the October War of 1973 (Ball). After his graduation he had various appearances on US television, where he spoke as an expert on international terrorism. This role suited him well and allowed Netanyahu to champion Israel in debates. As David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker magazine puts it: “He has a perfect American accent, what
41 Unity or Diversity
he thinks is a fingertip feel for American sensibilities and touch points, and he's great for CNN” (Netanyahu at War min. 18:22). During this time of high publicity in the US, Netanyahu also used an Americanized form of his name, going by “Ben Nitay24” (Bezalel). Later on, he founded the Jonathan Netanyahu Anti-Terror Institute in Israel, named after his older brother who died in a hostage rescue operation he commanded and which made him “a national hero” (ibid. min.15:05). One of the most formative influences on Benjamin Netanyahu's political understanding of the Middle East is the legacy of his father. Benzion Netanyahu was convinced that he was forced to pursue his academic career abroad due to his controversial right-wing views. In the founding years of the state, Israel was governed mostly by the Ashkenazi elite of the Labor party. Like them, Benzion Netanyahu had immigrated from Europe, yet his interpretation of what was best for the country differed immensely from the ideas on the left. He was skeptical of any peace negotiations with the Arab population and had lobbied in the United States for a Greater Israel, which would not be restricted to the borders suggested by the Partition Plan for Palestine of the UN. His opus magnum as a historian is a controversial account of the Spanish Inquisition, which argues that the Jewish converts to Catholicism were not persecuted because of a secret religious practice, but for racist reasons and due to their increasing power and influence in 15th century Spain. According to Judy Dempsey, this theory reflects two of Benzion Netanyahu's strongest convictions: The first is that assimilation does not work. It did not save the Sephardi Jews25. Nor did it save those Ashkenazi Jews who had assimilated during the 19th and 20th century from the Holocaust. Jews, so B. Netanyahu believed, will always be subject to some kind of racism. The second is that the Jews are naïve when it comes to heeding warnings. They ignored calls by the right-wing leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky to get the Jews out of Europe before it was too late. (Dempsey) In a world which he saw as eternally hostile and in which the Shoah was only a climax in a continuous attempt at genocide, the Jews would need to be protected not only from their enemies, but also from themselves and their own credulity. And the greatest source of danger nowadays was easily identified in Benzion Netanyahu's eyes: “The tendency toward conflict is in the essence of the Arab26. He is an enemy by essence. His personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. . . . His existence is one of perpetual war” (quoted in Derfner). This worldview, which he considered to
24 Nitay was also a pen name of Netanyahu's father. 25 The Sephardim are an ethnic group of Jews who trace their roots back to the Iberian Peninsula. The term is sometimes more broadly used to also include the Mizrahim (Oritental Jews or Jewish populations from North Africa and the Middle East). 26 Benzion Netanyahu never used the term Palestinian, which was to him a mere political tool to justify “an imaginary nation” (Dempsey). Note that this interview for the Maarev Daily was published in 2009 and despite direct intervention of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Derfner).
42 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
have cost him a potential tenure at Hebrew University, would turn out to be an asset for his son Benjamin. The face of Israel changed during the absence of the Netanyahu family. Larger numbers of Mizrahim moved to Israel in the fifties and sixties. As these Jewish communities from neighboring Middle Eastern states, “found themselves being treated as second class citizens in their new homeland, many turned to the conservative Likud party because it was less elitist but also more suspicious of the Arab world [than the Ashkenazi-dominated Labour party]” (Dempsey). Benjamin Netanyahu was an Ashkenazi, but one who shared his father's and the Mizrahim's sense of exclusion from power. After his time as ambassador, first to the US in Washington and later to the UN in New York during the 1980s, Netanyahu moved back to Israel once more and joined Likud. He played a major role in the protests against the Oslo Accords. These accords were the result of secret negotiations between leaders of the Palestine Liberation Organization under Yasser Arafat and the administration of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. The negotiations were mediated by the US and likely the most prestigious project among the foreign policies of president Bill Clinton. The aim was to initiate a process of mutual concessions by Israel and the PLO, based on the principle of trading occupied land for peace and the ultimate goal of a peace treaty between the parties. When Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated after a peace rally in support of the Oslo Accords he had negotiated, Netanyahu's opponents accused him of having helped to create an atmosphere of violence. Shimon Peres succeeded Rabin as the head of the Labour party and called for elections in the hope of gaining a mandate from the public to proceed with the Oslo process. Benjamin Netanyahu won his party’s nomination and took on the challenge of campaigning against the party of the late Rabin, who had attained the status of a martyr for peace with many Israelis. The polls saw Netanyahu and Likud far behind, when a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem turned the tide. On 29 May 1996 Netanyahu won the election for Prime Minister of Israel by a margin of less than one percent (“Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu: Commando Turned PM”). Right from his first term as prime minister during the end of the 90s, Benjamin Netanyahu was a controversial figure among American Jews. His resolute right-wing politics caused many American Jewish leaders to turn their backs on him and encourage Bill Clinton, then in his second term, to put more pressure on the Israeli prime minister in order to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians. This was remarkable, insofar as the Jewish groups in the US had previously backed Israel almost unconditionally and the term pressure had been “so politically sensitive that State Department officials [referred] to it as 'the P-word'” (Broder 89). Back then, the Israeli
43 Unity or Diversity
Policy Forum poll showed that a vast majority of 79 percent of American Jews opposed “Netanyahu's policies of continued settlement construction, land confiscations, and house demolitions” (90). The resulting rift was deepened further: For American Jews, 85 percent of whom belong to the Reform or Conservative denominations, the most damaging [irritant] has been Netanyahu's declared intention to support his Orthodox coalition partners in passing a law that would delegitimize Reform and Conservative Jews in Israel. It is hard to underestimate how corrosive this issue has become. American Jews, enraged by the thought that their brand of Judaism might be outlawed by the Netanyahu government, have begun to cut back on their donations to Israel. (Broder 90-91) Broder links this decline in donation money to a definite feeling of estrangement by many American Jews from Israel's peace politics in general and Netanyahu's role in particular (94-95). Among the reasons for this estrangement, Broder also notes that the new generation of Israeli leadership was more diverse and no longer dominated by white Jews with European roots (96). In the meanwhile, Ashkenazim are still estimated to make up for more than 90 percent of the Jewish American population (Feldman 341). Still this might not fully explain why Netanyahu is unpopular in the US. In addition to Likud's confirmation of the Orthodoxy's “traditional monopoly over all religious affairs in Israel” (Broder 93) and its renunciation of the liberal politics of Israel's past, Broder makes out another, more subtle reason for the faltering support of Jewish Americans: “One of the most fundamental truths about the Jewish community is that no matter how secure it has come to feel in the United States, it still feels uncomfortable and vaguely threatened when Washington is at odds with Israel” (96). Clinton and Netanyahu were at odds indeed, especially after the American president had openly backed Labor candidate Shimon Peres in his race against Netanyahu. The move with which Clinton had initially hoped to save the Oslo Accords, an achievement of his administration, had ultimately damaged his relationship to Israel's highest official. However, Clinton did not lose the support of the Jewish American community for his party. Al Gore and Kerry lost the respective presidential elections against George W. Bush despite of an impressive share of the Jewish vote, not because of any irritation Clinton had caused among this loyal voter demographic. The diplomatic relations between Israel and the US improved considerably under the Republican president. J.J. Goldberg, commentator and editor at the Forward, argues that Bush's “deeply conservative and essentially Manichaean outlook” was an outlook which “comforts Israelis' sense of isolation” (quoted in Marcus). While this might be a rather liberal and somewhat limited perspective on the relationship, it is not hard to find evidence for a dualistic worldview in Bush's rhetoric, especially after the terror attacks of 2001. In a speech on the importance of the 'war against terror', given one year after the invasion of Iraq, Bush said: “There is no neutral ground, no neutral
44 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
ground, in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death" (quoted in Loughlin). The negation of any possible neutral standing in this bipolar conflict “between good and evil” was actually a frequent figure in Bush's speeches (e.g. Bush 73, 76, 129). It serves to rally an audience behind a policy, which is established as a 'common cause' by erasing the middle ground. The examples above refer to speeches addressed at the UN, the US Congress, the American public and a military audience. In all of these cases, Bush reduces the possible positions in the conflict to 'friend or foe'. Without “neutral ground” there is no place for a bystander or a skeptic. This is a message which conveys a concept of unity to the audience – or to stay in the realm of military metaphors: It animates to close ranks and fight under the same banner. Although this rhetoric did not seem to resound with most of the Jewish electorate in the United States, it may well describe the outlook of many Israelis in a long-lasting conflict – independently of whether they feel they are on the Jewish side or the Arab side of it. The rhetoric used in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is almost the same, especially by those who doubt the benefits of peace negotiations with the other side. Netanyahu's speeches provide numerous examples. The following one is taken from this year's AIPAC conference, hence its primary addressees are a Jewish American audience. Year after year the overwhelming majority of Americans stand with Israel. They know something profound that stands out for all to see today. They know that Israel is an island of liberty and democracy and stability in the sea of despotism, and violence, and instability that surrounds us. And that is why I believe that Israel must never be an issue that divides Americans, but a great cause of liberty that unites Americans. (“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” min. 06:16) The image of the island and the sea are perfectly suited to advance the myth of dualism. The only alternative to land is sea. For Netanyahu, the options in the Middle East are either to support Israel and its democracy or to leave it to the chaos of the other, by which the us is surrounded. One attribute of the island which the metaphor transfers to Israel is the state of natural isolation. The island's unitary existence is part of the words definition. There is no historical reasoning, which could explain the island's position. It is in the nature of an island to be surrounded by sea. As a sign, the island signifies the concept of passivity, especially if contrasted with the dynamic sea. This distinction is doubled by calling Israel an island of stability. Instability is in the nature of the sea. Thus, while the hostile neighbors are actively threatening Israel, its deeds are portrayed as mere reactions. They are an attempt to escape the passive victimhood of an island endangered by the flood. And yet some neutral ground is left open by Netanyahu. In his speech, those Americans who stand with Israel are the knowing majority. This line
45 Unity or Diversity
of reasoning leaves the other Americans with two possible positions: the position of the ignorant, who have not yet seen this “profound” truth, or the deluded, who have embarked on “the trend of maligning Israel” (ibid. min. 20:13). Thus, a neutrality is portrayed as possible, albeit infinitely inferior to the status of insight. In Netanyahu's speech, Israel becomes “a great cause of liberty”, it is the common cause as which the 'war on terror' was portrayed by the Bush administration. To this day the Likud party has strong links to the Israeli military and traditionally holds up the important role of a strong military for Israel's security. Yet, even within his party Netanyahu had for years belonged to the right wing. In 2004, for example, he staunchly opposed the disengagement plan from Gaza of his fellow party member and then prime minister Ariel Sharon, calling for a national referendum. He resigned as finance minister when the plan was finally enacted, only to reclaim Likud leadership several months later. The position was vacant, because Sharon and the moderate Likud members who supported him, had left the party to form their own, the centrist Kadima (“Profile: Ariel Sharon”). After three years in political opposition to the new party, Netanyahu was elected for a second term as prime minister and he has held this position since. The beginning of Netanyahu's second term as prime minister also coincided with the beginning of Barack Obama's first as president. These were political shifts in two rather different directions. Americans had elected a rather liberal president, while Netanyahu formed a government with several smaller parties of Israel's far-right. Keeping the nationalist and Ultra-Orthodox parts of this coalition content is a difficult task. It certainly accounts for some of Netanyahu's rigid positions regarding compromises with the Palestinians and some of the diplomatic discord with the US27 (cf. Heilemann). Yet, the political shifts were not only along the line of a two- dimensional political spectrum which goes “liberal, moderate, conservative”. Obama started his presidency announcing that he would “seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world” (Obama, “A New Beginning” min.03:18). Where the Bush administration had talked about an “axis of evil”, the new administration was suddenly reluctant to call out enemies. In fact, it restored diplomatic relations with Cuba and – by far more controversial – initiated negotiations with Iran. By April 2015 the negotiations had led to a concrete deal which was outlined in Lausanne. It will bring relief of the economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for a limit to Iran's nuclear program and the mandate to send inspectors of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, into its power plants. The negotiations have
27 Biden's journey to Israel for peace talks in 2010, to name just one example. Upon the arrival of the Vice President, there was “a surprise announcement by the Interior Ministry . . . of the building of new settlement blocs in contested East Jerusalem” (Heilemann 4). The ministry is controlled by the Ultra- Orthodox Shas party.
46 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
lasted for over a decade but only gained momentum some two years earlier. In 2013, the United States started secret negotiations with Iranian diplomats in Oman, an act which upon its discovery by Israeli intelligence granted serious irritation. The Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren pointed out: “We're confronted with this reality in which our principal ally has negotiated behind our backs for seven months with our worst enemy” (Netanyahu at War min.01:39:29). Iran's status as Israel's “worst enemy” has a long history. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, its political and religious leaders have repeatedly argued for the “elimination” (Khamenei quoted in Molloy) or the “annihilation of the Zionist regime” (Ahmadinejad quoted in Zeiger). Furthermore, Iran plays a major role in financing terrorist groups and paramilitary organizations in the Middle East. Among them are groups whose militants have launched rocket attacks on Israel, such as Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and even the Sunni Hamas, which forms the governing authority of the Gaza Strip (Gleis and Berti 156). Despite of Israel's fears for its national security the Obama administration firmly backed the results of the Iran negotiations. In an effort to stop the deal, Netanyahu accepted John Boehner's invitation to speak before Congress and made the journey to Washington.
4. 'One People': Jewishness in Netanyahu's Speech before Congress It was already clarified that the reasons for which Netanyahu's speech was deemed so important, do not only lie in Israel's unique geopolitical position or its vital interest in the consequences of an Iran deal. For Netanyahu, a widely received appearance on the international stage was another opportunity to cast himself as the protector of Israel. For the Republicans, providing a stage for Netanyahu was still “the easiest way to come from the right and cast Obama as a dove28” (Tracy). And for the Democrats, a harsh critique of their foreign policies coming from the official Israel was never welcome, but even less so at a stage where details of the nuclear deal were still being negotiated. Hence, Netanyahu's unwillingness to sanction the agreement reached during the negotiations, was met with great approval by the GOP and increased determination by the Democrats. Taking a closer look at his address, it is important to bear in mind Netanyahu's audience. The prime minister's visible addressee are the two houses of the American Congress, but his message is also meant to reach the American public, whose
28 The terms hawk and dove are widely used in US politics. The former refers to a politician who advocates military action as an effective means of enforcing US interests abroad. The latter is a politician who considers military action as the last resort.
47 Unity or Diversity
Representatives and Senators are gathered before him. The third and least obvious addressee of Netanyahu's speech is constituted by his potential electorate back home in Israel. Despite of all claims that his being in the U.S. was not political (cf. “Netanyahu addresses both houses of Congress29”, min.01:14), any speech by Netanyahu would have been received with much interest by the Israeli public, especially two weeks before the legislative election. However, Netanyahu is not only talking to the Jewish people, he is also talking for them, as he claimed on numerous occasions before (cf. Pfeffer). Right before boarding his plane to the U.S. in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu described how he sees his agency for the Jews as a nation: “I feel I am representing all the citizens of Israel, even those who do not agree with me, a representative of the entire Jewish people. I feel a deep and sincere concern for the safety of all citizens of Israel and the fate of the state and the fate of our people” (Bibi's Big Adventure, min.02:09). This statement contains a rhetoric move which gradually expands Netanyahu's representation from Israelis to world Jewry. However, it is a rhetoric inclusion and an exclusion at the same time. Not every citizen of Israel is part of the Jewish people. The consequences of this distinction were the reason why Netanyahu had to call early elections in the first place. Without the support of its only moderate coalition partner, Netanyahu's administration found itself unable to pass the Jewish nation-state bill. The bill's aim was to declare Israel's status as the Jewish nation-state in one of the basic laws, the Israeli equivalent of a constitution. Declaring Jewish identity the official nationality of the Israeli state, would have been the legal equivalent to Netanyahu's rhetoric of double-representation. The result is a clearly privileged group of those who can claim both, membership of the nation and the state. Critics have argued that legislation of this kind has already transformed Israel to “a liberal ethnocracy” (Sand 307). By foregrounding the representation of the Jewish people and equating it with Israel, Netanyahu includes the Jewish diaspora in his nation. At the same time, he effectively creates an Other within the state, who does not fully belong. At the height of his reelection campaign he would even warn of the Other's voter turnout: “Arab voters are coming out in droves to the ballot box. Left-wing NGOs are bringing them on buses” (quoted in Sales). By referring to some Israelis as “Arabs” they are marked as foreigners to the Jewish nation30. While Netanyahu found more conciliatory words after his election victory (Heilman), he still held on to his claim of advocacy. About half a year after he was in
29 Title is abbreviated to “Netanyahu addresses” below. 30 It is interesting to note how Arab functions as a buzzword in political discourse. The extent to which it is loaded with negative connotations causes it to be substituted in most official speeches. After the election Netanyahu would for example talk about helping “Jews and non-Jews alike” (quoted in Heilman).
48 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
fact reelected, Netanyahu was asked whether he saw the ratified nuclear deal as a defeat. With respect to his speeches on the subject he said: “Look, I think that I had to speak up. I didn't have a vote around that table, but I have a voice. And the Jewish people seven years ago [i.e. before Netanyahu's second term as prime minister] had no voice to even speak up about those who would exterminate us” (“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu” min. 17:12). Netanyahu’s statement follows the logic of the Jewish nation-state. If Israel is seen by definition as the state of the Jewish nation, its prime minister might regard himself as the head of state as well as the leader of the nation. It goes without saying that parts of the Jewish diaspora will find it presumptuous for an Israeli prime minister to consider himself 'the voice of the Jewish people'. Even Jews who are part of the Israeli electorate and had a vote, may in fact feel seriously misrepresented by the self-declared “guardian of Israel” (ibid. min. 23:50). Netanyahu's claim could not be clearer when it comes to whom he represents. How he represents “the entire Jewish people” in his speech will be analyzed below in some selected moments of his speech. These moments were chosen by virtue of their clear reference to the Jewish people as a whole. However, the role of “the Jewish people” will be easier to assess if it is contrasted with ‘other’ parts of the text population.
4.1. 'Us' and 'Them' and Knowing the Difference– Portraying the Other to Expand the Own Netanyahu spends long sections of his speech characterizing the Iranian regime as “terrorists” or “religious zealots” and comparing it to the Nazi regime. “[T]he ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America” (“Netanyahu addresses”, min.13:59). Netanyahu’s speech is an attempt to reassure his audience of this eternal enmity. The propagated differences between Iran and the US are treated as proof for his case. Early on, in his speech Netanyahu compares the founding documents of both countries and explains that America “promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, whereas Iran “pledges death, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad”. Again, a dualism is established in absolute terms. The conclusion can only be that whatever is in the interest of Iran can only run counter to 'the founding document' of the United States. This phrasing allows Netanyahu to introduce a popular notion of US political discourse. Interpretations of 'what the Founding Fathers intended' and 'what the Constitution says' are common arguments brought up in discussions, especially by conservatives. By avoiding these buzzwords literally, Netanyahu can borrow their authority, but does not commit the sacrilege of telling Americans how to interpret their Constitution.
49 Unity or Diversity
An implicit comparison of America and Israel as opposed to Iran accompanies Netanyahu's entire speech. The verbs which are associated with each of these countries and their leaders differ significantly. Israel and the US are hardly ever the agents in Netanyahu's speech. What they do is almost static or only a reaction to circumstances. “History has placed” the two countries where they are. The US “stand with Israel” and should be “standing up to Iran” (min. 34:06). Similar to the metaphor of the island and the sea, Israel is again passive. It merely faces threats and defends. It does not distrust Iran; it is Iran which “has proven it cannot be trusted”. Indeed, Iran is the agent throughout the speech. The verbs collocated with it are decidedly active and profoundly negative in their connotations. The most prominent group of verbs refers to criminal acts such as killing, maiming, assassinating, hanging, executing, persecuting, taking hostage and blowing up. A smaller, but equally interesting group of verbs depicts Iran and its agents as chasing down Jews and spewing hatred. According to Netanyahu, Iran is driven by a “voracious appetite for aggression”, which will only be whetted by the concessions of a deal. Iran “gobbles up countries” or “devours” them. The common vehicle of all these metaphors are the instincts of a wild beast or predator. But arguably, Netanyahu establishes the vein of these metaphors earlier, when he says: “Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror” (min. 10:12). The image of the tentacle supports Netanyahu's argument, that these groups should not be considered as individual problems. They have no will of their own, but are integral parts of Iran's greater scheme. With its multiple limbs and obscure physique, Iran is not portrayed as a natural beast, but rather as a perverted monstrosity. A particularly interesting example of othering comes after Netanyahu has finished his extensive enumeration of Iran's 'monstrous' acts. As an alternative to the current situation he gives recommendations of how to deal with Iran: If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country . . . if Iran threatens to walk away from the table – and this often happens in a Persian bazaar – call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do. (“Netanyahu Addresses” min 28:25)
The clarity of these words does not only suggest a set of clear consequences for dealing with Iran, but it purposefully draws on the genre of parental advice. The resemblance is emphasized by a choice of a rather general vocabulary, which could be used in various contexts of human interaction. The goals sound inherently pedagogical (change behavior, act normal) and could be something parents demand from their challenging offspring. The short, simple sentences seem geared towards the intellect of a child. The myth which is perpetuated here is one of superiority. It portrays the US in a position of
50 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
power, which only needs to be exerted on the inferior vis-à-vis. The image of “a Persian bazaar” then adds strong undertones of romantic Orientalism. The myth becomes a distinctly Western superiority31, as Netanyahu resorts to the idea of the mysterious Oriental culture with its strange rituals. However, it is important to acknowledge a second, and somewhat less condescending, assertion of superiority. By positioning himself as the expert, Netanyahu establishes his superior knowledge of the Middle East. He presents himself as accustomed to the confusing Persian bazaar and actually lectures his audience on how to treat 'those Orientals'. Netanyahu's superior expertise and certainty on the matter are realized at every stage of his speech. Numerous times Netanyahu knows and concludes that we must. He introduces his list of Iranian atrocities with this statement: “To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime” (min. 08:54). What follows can only be Netanyahu sharing his full understanding of the regime's nature. The difference in knowledge is a recurring theme, which can already be found in Netanyahu's expressions of gratitude towards the US: “And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known. . . . But I know it, and I will always be grateful” (min. 04:29). Establishing Netanyahu's authority is important, because one function of the speech is to persuade the audience to trust his expert judgment of the situation. Sometimes Netanyahu includes his audience in the circle of those who already know, but this circle is never very exclusive. “You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can google it.”, is one example, another is “You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know” (min. 16:51 and 33:26). These phrases actually imply that something belongs to the most general knowledge. As Netanyahu cannot afford to discredit his audience, he stresses that he knows them on the side of Israel. On the other hand, the proponents of the Iran deal are never called out by name, but referred to in abstract terms such as some, anyone and those who. The activities which they engage in, have an uncertain quality. They believe, hope and perceive. At other times, their actions are narrated in the passive voice, as something which is inflicted upon the us. “Two years ago, we were told to give [Rouhani] a chance” (“Netanyahu Addresses” min. 12:52). Those who tell the us so, are obviously Netanyahu's political opponents in the US. Netanyahu represents them as an abstract power, which is different from his audience. Their approach is portrayed as speculative
31 That Israel shares in Western superiority is part of the official country's self-image since it was founded. Ben-Gurion “often remarked that Israel was located in the Middle East by an accident of geography and despite its values and culture, which made it part of the West” (Shlaim 86).
51 Unity or Diversity
and excessively risky: “I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future” (min. 26:03). The stakes are presented as immensely high by Netanyahu. Whoever is willing to take such a risk, is by conclusion irresponsible, misguided or simply ignorant – a harsh contrast to the knowing prime minister. Again, those in favor of the deal are not mentioned directly, but only implied as the source of an imperative which Netanyahu negates. There are obvious reasons why this new, abstract Other does not feature prominently in the text. It is supposed to be neglected next to the horrid picture of the hostile and concrete Other, which is Iran. The construction of Iran as the only relevant Other allows the prime minister to create different forms of us. The plural form of the first person pronoun is used in two different ways. Mostly, Netanyahu uses it to create a linguistic bond between Israel and the US as in: “America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope” (min.02:47) or “To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen” (min.15:49). Confronting his audience with the monstrosity of Iran, Netanyahu facilitates their identification with this we. In other passages of his speech we refers to the Jewish people as a group.
4.2. Esther as the Myth of a Champion for the Jews After several assertions of Israel's gratitude towards the US, Congress and the president, Netanyahu addresses the reason of his coming. Emphasizing the long history and the struggle of the Jews, Netanyahu proclaims: We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled. Our people were saved. [Applause]. Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. (“Netanyahu addresses”, min.06:23)
The Jewish people are represented as a clearly defined, homogenous group. Hence, the individual can only partake in this Jewish identity if he or she identifies with Netanyahu's idea of us Jews. The cultural practice referred to by the statement “we'll read the Book of Esther”, becomes a constituent part of Jewish identity, as portrayed by Benjamin Netanyahu. This narrow definition excludes many Americans who consider themselves Jewish, but do not observe the religious rites of Judaism. Unlike Yom Kippur or Passover, days which are celebrated by the majority of American Jews
52 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
(Amyot and Sigelman 181), Purim has gained less of a foothold in the United States. Moshin and Jackson note that for “modern American Jews . . …. the thrust has changed from Judaism to Jewishness, and from dogmatic religion to civil religion” (71). As Netanyahu neglects secular Jewishness in his speech, he implicitly narrows down the definition of who is Jewish. This general process is the one so aptly described by Jackson: Netanyahu “prioritizes a certain type of Jewish identity at the expense of other Jewish identities” (205). Netanyahu's synopsis of the Book of Esther is the most prominent instance of intertextuality in the speech. The sentence which immediately follows it, makes clear that Netanyahu utilizes it as a parable. Hence, the reference divides his audience into those who are familiar with it and those to whom it is an unknown mythical story. In either case quoting the Hebrew Bible (or later on Robert Frost) is a demonstration of the speaker's intellect. It allows Netanyahu to claim a share in the ancient wisdom of holy scripture. Furthermore, the reference lends authority to Netanyahu's words. It is not in his words that the Jewish are portrayed as the victims of ill-meaning enemies, their status is verified by a higher power, documented by the central writings of Judaism and Christianity. Just how much authority this move gains Netanyahu with a certain part of his audience can hardly be overestimated. Literal interpretations of the Bible are a widespread phenomenon, especially in the conservative core electorate (cf. Bartkowski 259). In their eyes, Netanyahu might not merely speak wisdom, but divine right, when he refers to the Jewish people’s “right to defend themselves”. The reference's function as an enactment of intellectual and religious authority, is as important as its assertion of Netanyahu's Jewishness. If he wants to speak with the authority of the Jewish people as a whole, he has to ensure that his listeners regard him as the representative of the Jews rather than some foreign head of state. For non-Jewish Americans who cannot relate to the story of Esther, its names and setting will at least trigger a historic, and possibly exotic notion of Jewishness. Those who know the Book of Esther will be able to draw some parallels which are left unsaid by Netanyahu, but which he certainly implies. The Bible has Esther living with her cousin, the Jewish leader Mordecai, among the Jewish people of the Persian empire. She wins the favor of King Ahasuerus and becomes his queen. Soon after that, the proud Haman becomes the king's first counselor. He is wildly offended by the fact that Mordecai refuses to bow before him. When he finds out that Mordecai is Jewish, he decides to have the entire Jewish population killed and has the king sanction a decree, which he designed to order coordinated attacks on the Jewish communities of the kingdom. When Mordecai hears of the decree, he informs Esther and begs her to intervene. In order to prevent the
53 Unity or Diversity
catastrophe, Esther invites the King and Haman to some feasts she prepares. When the King finally grants her a wish, Esther exposes Haman's plot. The King is furious that his highest counselor has betrayed his trust. Haman is taken to the gallows, which he had already erected for Mordecai, and executed. Unable to countermand his own decree, the King allows the Jewish population of his empire to take up arms and defend themselves. They do so successfully and Esther instructs her people to have an annual commemoration of the event – the Jewish holiday of Purim (Esth. 2-9). The only equation Netanyahu makes explicitly is that of Haman and the Iranian government. Referring to Iran's nuclear ambitions as “another attempt by yet another Persian” places Iran at the end of a long sequence of similar events. Haman, who is unable to enjoy his power and riches as long as he does not see Mordecai demeaned before him, is arguably the biblical archetype of the anti-Semite (cf. Juni and B. Katz 131). Thus, the reasons for the Iranian aggression are also beyond explanation and squarely identified as an eternal anti-Semitism. As today's Iranian government is denied the role of the Persian king, it is clear whom Netanyahu sees in this role. Ahasuerus is portrayed as a powerful ruler and a just king, if it were not for the fact that he naively trusts the wrong people. This critique of the American government is not lost on anyone who is vaguely familiar with the Book of Esther. The American government is therefore a legitimate leader in the parable, but it is ill-advised and in need of someone who tells them what is really happening in 'their empire'. The story's heroine is the only Jewish person who is able to reach the king himself and explain to him the threat of extermination her people are facing. She knows the internal dynamics of the royal court, but she is also informed about the world outside the palace. Risking her own life, Esther makes every effort to protect her people. Thus, her name has become the signifier of a myth of championship. Using this sign in his speech, Netanyahu extends her status to his own. The messages of this move are clear: The danger is real and Netanyahu is the only one who can protect the Jewish people. He is their voice in front of the ruling super-power and his task is to free the US government of its delusions about Iran. According to the parable Netanyahu employs, he will do everything to save his people. He too, is a champion for the Jews. The literary function of Esther's cousin Mordecai in the legend is to be the allegory of the Jewish people. He is the representative victim of Haman's evil intentions and his mourning at the king's gate can be read as the unheard lament of all Jews. Netanyahu does not include the figure of Mordecai in his synopsis, but he introduces a leading figure of the Jewish American community in his speech. Towards the end of it, he addresses the presence of Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize Laureate Elie Wiesel. After long standing ovations, Netanyahu elaborates: “I wish I could promise you, Elie,
54 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past” (“Netanyahu Addresses” min. 35:39)32. Netanyahu seems to direct his words at a single addressee in the audience, the monologue of the political speech changes its character for a short time. The various presuppositions of these sentences make them seem almost like a stunted dialogue. They suggest that Elie Wiesel requested Netanyahu's commitment to this cause and his promise that the genocide would never be repeated. The whole passage appears as an answer to a request which Netanyahu's other addressees have never heard. Thus, Wiesel's presence seems to be sufficient to beg such a promise by Netanyahu. Seeing himself unable to make this promise, the prime minister's words are apologetic. His regretful tone, implies that both men would see it as Netanyahu's mission to ensure the safety of Elie Wiesel. At this point Elie Wiesel is not only present as the human being, but also as the living signifier of victimhood. Netanyahu's words design him as a standard bearer of the Jewish fate. He is Mordecai, insofar as he embodies the needs of the Jewish people. By portraying himself as the advocate of those needs, Netanyahu claims to be in the tradition of Queen Esther. As the aspiring champion of the Jewish people cannot leave it at that. Saying “I can only urge”, limits his options drastically and undermines the aura of certainty and determination Netanyahu has created for himself. Hence, he continues: But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves. (“Netanyahu Addresses” min.36:07) Once more, Netanyahu emphasizes the united character of the Jewish people and refers to Israel as their home. This strategic move also aims to legitimize his speaking on behalf of the entire Jewry. The underlying argument is once more that if Israel is the home of all Jews and Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel, he is also a legitimate representative for all Jews. Only once in his speech does Netanyahu distinguish explicitly between the Jewish people as a whole and the citizens of Israel, but only to deny that distinction: “For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: 'If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world” (min.08:08). Again, any division within the Jewish people is negated and again, the common enemy serves as proof for a shared identity.
32 Note how the “learned” Netanyahu is again contrasted with the anonymous “leaders of the world”.
55 Unity or Diversity
Throughout his speech, Netanyahu's wording aims to create the image of a united Jewry. Whoever is Jewish, shares things with the rest of their people. Jews are represented as having a common enemy in Iran, a common home in Israel and a common spokesperson in Benjamin Netanyahu. They identify with the ancient Hebrews and their traditions and they are supposed to celebrate Purim by reading the Book of Esther. It cannot come as a surprise that many American Jewish organizations strongly objected to Netanyahu's speech and its implications. Even before he arrived in the U.S. a variety of Jewish groups had spoken out against Netanyahu's visit and many renowned public figures distanced themselves or commented on his speech on the very day of Netanyahu's address to Congress.
5. Heterodoxy – Jewishness in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Among the commentators on Netanyahu's visit was Jon Stewart, who devoted an entire episode of The Daily Show to the event. Given Stewart's topical humor regarding Jewishness, it does not come as a surprise that Jewish identity featured prominently in the episode on March 3, 2015. In order to counter the one-dimensional conceptions of Jewish identity which are propagated by Netanyahu and reiterated in the media, Stewart has to debunk the intentions which are at the bottom of that narrative. To achieve this, he systematically undermines the authority of both and attempts to topple the myths they constructed by applying Jewish humor.
5.1. Undermining Authority Right after the conventional introductory graphics and music of The Daily Show, Stewart welcomes his audience with the usual formulas and announces the episode's studio guest. Quite unusually, the first segment is introduced by yet another greeting of the audience: Shalom! My friends, welcome to a very special night. The prime minister of Israel, Ben-ya-min Ne-tan-ya-hu [Stewart pronounces the name slowly, stressing every syllable], addressed Congress today in observance of the sacred Jewish holiday of “Suuk-on-it-Mr. President” [audience laughter]. It was a festival of slights [audience laughter]. It's a blessed tradition dating back all the way to January when House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress without consulting the White House. ( Bibi's Big Adventure min. 00:34) This second welcome creates the impression that Stewart introduces the audience into another world. This effect is achieved with the Hebrew greeting and notions which belong to a religious context such as the observance of a holiday or a “blessed tradition”. The phrase “a very special night” is an intertextual reference to the question
56 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
“Why is this night different from all other nights?”, which is traditionally asked by a child during the Passover Seder (Bial 141). The supposed cause of Netanyahu’s visit, is the imaginary holiday “Suuk-on-it”, which is “a festival of slights”. Both names refer to the actual Jewish holidays Sukkot and Hanukkah, the latter being also known as the Festival of Lights. The quotation above is remarkable, because it contains plenty of allusions which the gentile majority of Stewart's audience might not fully understand. But throwing in all these Jewish terms and phrases, allows Stewart to position himself with the insiders of this world. It legitimizes his mocking remarks on Jewishness, as he makes them. The religious connotations of Stewart's 'report' seem utterly misplaced. Its flowery language implies old, traditional rites, when it is actually used in a description of recent political developments. The discrepancy between “a blessed tradition dating back all the way” and “January” is not inherently comic. What accounts for its humor is the parallel discrepancy Stewart sees between the sacred language of politics and its profane motives. It is the discrepancy between Netanyahu's portrayal of his mission as the Jewish champion and its representation in The Daily Show as pompous political marketing. Netanyahu refers to the world's Jews as “an ancient people” (“Netanyahu Addresses” min. 06:23) and to the country they live in as “our ancient homeland” (“Israeli PM” min. 07:33). This language implies a long history of being a nation and tenure of the land. It provides a justification for rather contemporary political claims. And the 'more ancient' such history is, the 'more natural' is the corresponding justification, at least by the logic of nationalism (cf. chapter 1.2.4.) As Stewart presents his own pseudo-traditional justification of Netanyahu's visit, he satirizes a common rhetoric stratagem. The prime minister refers to the festival of Purim in order to present the concerns of his speech as inherently Jewish. By comparing March 3 to holidays which are actually rooted in Jewish tradition, Stewart makes Netanyahu's move more transparent. It becomes obvious that the references to certain signs are made, because they are signifiers of a mythological Jewishness. Later in the show, Stewart explicitly criticizes this technique as “patronizing”, when he shows the scene transition graphics CNN has designed for the occasion (“Bibi’s Big Adventure” min. 03:30). Apparently, the channel had changed its usual transition wipe between scenes from a five-pointed star to a blue Star of David for the time of Netanyahu's visit. CNN uses this symbol of Judaism with the same objectives as Netanyahu, when he applies markers of Jewish identity. Both claim an exclusive right to represent the Jewish, so they can more effectively market their actions as something which is solely in the interest of that community. By suggesting a “spinning yarmulke” for transitions, Stewart illustrates that the Magen David is used merely as an arbitrary
57 Unity or Diversity
token of Jewishness (min. 03:44). The purpose of CNN's star wipe is obvious, because it cannot be backed up by a credible Jewishness of the channel. This is why Netanyahu's references to Jewish signs are not quite as easily ridiculed. They seem authentic. Stewart can only deny the Jewishness of Netanyahu's cause, not the Jewishness of his identity. To separate one from the other is what Stewart attempts to do when he alienates the signs of Jewishness from the public discourse in which they are utilized. In the course of the 'Jewish welcome', quoted above, Stewart makes a show of pronouncing Netanyahu's name correctly. His exaggerated utterance, makes clear that Stewart has little to no command of Hebrew. Yet, his mock-attempt to pronounce the name correctly also marks its bearer as different. It is clearly not a device to express politeness or respect, but a move which maximizes Netanyahu's foreignness. During the segment, the audience is also shown a picture of Netanyahu next to a map of Israel, another device contributing to this effect of othering. Other allusions follow, for example, when Stewart attributes Netanyahu's good looks in part to his presumably foreign cuisine: “the world needs Netanyahu's anti-aging secret – because it can't just be chick peas, oil and lemon33” (min. 08:15). The characterization of Netanyahu as 'un- American' already foreshadows an argument in Stewart's critique of the visit: “Of course, Benjamin Netanyahu was on hand to explain to our Congress why our president should not be negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran” (min 01:55). Just as Stewart has to demonstrate his Jewishness in order to criticize Jews, a lack of American identity on Netanyahu's side is used to discredit his opinion on American politics. In addition to satirizing Netanyahu's rhetoric and stressing his foreignness, Stewart also tries to dismantle the prime minister's status as an expert. The last chapter has shown that Netanyahu continuously asserts his superior knowledge of the Middle East, while denouncing the ignorance and carelessness of those who argue in favor of a deal with Iran. This professed expertise of Netanyahu is implicitly discredited by a pop culture reference. Several times during the show, a picture of Netanyahu is shown together with the caption “Bibi's Big Adventure” (e.g. min. 02:42). Netanyahu's nickname Bibi is widely known, yet its recurring presentation on The Daily Show is still remarkable. The reduplication of a simple syllable and the diminutive [i] sound are elements of caretaker speech (“Caretaker Speech”), which accounts for the infantilizing character of this appellation. The effect is doubled by the pun, which refers to Tim Burton's 1985 movie Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Its main character Pee-Wee Herman34 is an immature and unpredictable man-child, who travels across the United States to retrieve his beloved bike. Netanyahu's resolute manner and authority are effectively
33 The ingredients for Hummus, a popular food originally from the Middle East;
58 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
undermined, as Stewart's audience is led to associate him with the antics of Pee-Wee. If the nature of Netanyahu's visit can be compared to Pee-Wee's trip, this means that his sense of mission is equal to the irrational determination of a child. Stewart also employs less subtle tools to cast doubts on Netanyahu's speech and its air of certainty. The Daily Show airs two clips of Netanyahu's address to Congress, which are both immediately juxtaposed with moments from older speeches. The first pair of clips contain the prime minister's keen warning of Iran's imminent nuclear breakthrough. As the old speech was recorded in 1996, Stewart quips this: “Apparently, time was also running out 19 years ago.” (“Bibi’s Big Adventure” min. 07:36). The second moment taken from Netanyahu's speech is the enumeration of “Arab capitals”, which are currently dominated by Iran. Here, the capitals are of course a metonymy of the respective governments, which have close ties to the Islamic Republic. “We have to act, look at how Iran has expanded its power since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the destabilization of the region. I mean, what kind of an idiot wouldn't have seen that coming in 2002? Oh, Shalom!” (min. 08:40). In response to this, a clip shows Netanyahu promoting a US invasion into Iraq and guaranteeing the “enormous positive reverberations” (min. 09:02) it would have on the region. When commenting on the clip, Stewart particularly emphasizes the passage of time. This way, he dismisses Netanyahu's warnings as repetitive, undermining their alleged urgency. The Iraq War has been a central topic of the show for years and Stewart, being one of its few early critics, has repeatedly run pieces covering the misinformation of the public during its build-up35. Hence, for many Americans, but especially for Stewart's audience, the Iraq War is the epitome of political blunder. The Daily Show presents this audience with a Netanyahu who is lamenting the consequences of a policy he advocated thirteen years earlier. This time span is not emphasized, because maximizing it could make Netanyahu's remark appear distant and excusable. By broadcasting Netanyahu's false predictions, Stewart argues that following this man's advice might be as serious a mistake as invading Iraq. Furthermore, it hints at the possibility that Netanyahu may pursue a military 'solution' to his problem with Iran. In retrospective, Netanyahu's conviction about an immediate threat and the certainty of his promises are shown to have had no foundation in reality. He is not portrayed as the wise and seasoned politician, but as an actively deceiving agitator. The role of the US Congress in staging Netanyahu's speech is also addressed on the show. After showing a clip of Netanyahu's entrance and the fervent applause it received, Stewart comments: “It was a miracle. A standing ovation that was to last for just one minute, miraculously lasted eight” (min. 06:40). Once more, Stewart draws on
35 e.g. “Realization: Iraqi Freedom” (2003), “Mess O'Potamia” (2005) and “Judith Miller Pt.1” (2015).
59 Unity or Diversity
religious discourse for his satire. His statement is an allusion to the Talmudic legend behind Hanukkah, which says that when the Second Temple was rededicated, there was only enough oil to light the lamps for one day. Yet, miraculously, the oil lasted for the eight entire days it took the resupply to arrive (“Hanukkah”). No matter how long Netanyahu's welcome applause lasted, it barely qualifies as a miracle. Its rather ordinary and human origin is highlighted by the contrast between Stewart's sacred language and its profane point of reference. This can also be seen as an implicit critique of the news media, who often report on political events in a sensationalist manner, but do not reflect that these events are carefully staged for their benefit. Stewart heightens the sensationalist effect in his description. His parody declares that there is no magic behind Netanyahu's reception, but the conscious decision to create the image of a natural, spontaneous enthusiasm. Stewart transforms this myth of naturalness into one of divine providence, because it enforces the mythologist's way of reading it and illustrates the semiotic distortion of an artificial and all too human spectacle. About two weeks after his speech, The Daily Show covered the result of the Israeli legislative elections. Netanyahu's success was portrayed in the light of his controversial campaign, during which he had held events in West Bank settlements and rejected the prospect of a Two-state solution (“Oy Voted” min. 02:56). After some clips of news programs summarizing the election, Stewart exclaims: “Holy, shit [bleeped]! Netanyahu just decided to go full settler” (min. 03:14). What follows is the full screen graphic of a switchboard.
Image 2: The Israeli political spectrum according to The Daily Show. Netanyahu is presented as belonging to one of the multiple sub-categories on this scale (“Oy Voted” min. 03:24).
60 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
It is remarkable in itself that The Daily Show would show a graphic with so much text on it. Usually, there is a higher frequency of cuts, so a static image which is shown for twelve entire seconds slows down the pace of the show considerably. Stewart unsuccessfully tries to continue with his text twice and has to interrupt his sentences when the screenshot does not simultaneously return to his desk. This minor slip shows how unfamiliar he is with a silent break of this length36 and forces him to comment it: “Now, I'll let you read those for a little bit” (ibid.). Including a graphic of such complexity is a rather unconventional move, yet there is a plausible reason for it: Complexity is what the graphic ought to communicate. Splitting up the spectrum into more items than can possibly be read within a few seconds, gives the impression of an uncountable number of sub-categories. Hence, the image becomes a signifier of political diversity, especially among Jewish Americans, who account for at least seven of the nine categories in the spectrum.
The image is also a display of Jewish diversity in a more general sense. It includes a variety of Jewish identities who allude to the numerous dimensions of Jewishness. Some are explicitly political such as the lobbying-group J-Street or the most generous of Republican donors, Sheldon Adelson (Ben Zion). Jewishness is visible as religion in the stage of the lady rabbi as well as the convert. While the “father's second wife” was apparently not born Jewish, the stages “your mother” and “your bubbe37” clearly refer to the hereditary dimensions of Jewishness. The dimension of nationality is the overall theme of the graphic. The central display of Israel's flag, claims that the country is a defining factor for all Jewish identities in the picture. Although the caption reads “Israeli political spectrum”, none of the categories refers to an Israeli citizen. “Full settler” Benjamin Netanyahu is the only exception to this and his role as the token Israeli seems to become the subject of an Americentric perception of Israel's politics. The image conveys not only a distinctly American outlook on the world, but a Jewish American one. The usage of the Yiddish word bubbe implies the Jewishness of the image's creator as well as that of the grandmother he or she refers to. As “your bubbe” is collocated with “your mother”, a matrilineal descent is suggested which extends to the reader, who is also assigned a Jewish identity this way. Stewart appears
36Note that The Daily Show does not air live, so the scene could have been edited. Apparently, it was decided to keep the slip in the final version, probably to avoid a faltering audience laughter or prolonged silence. 37 Yiddish: grandmother (http://yiddishdictionaryonline.com/). Also Latinized as bobe or bubby.
61 Unity or Diversity
to offer his gentile audience a switch of perspective, the outsiders are made to see the issue through the eyes of Jewish Americans. The idea of putting generic sub-identities on a board and assigning them certain political leanings is patronizing in and by itself. Yet, to implicitly present it as the Jewish worldview takes the satire to a new level. The spatial descent from “bubbe” to “mother” in the graphic, suggests that their descendant (i.e. the reader) is one step further to the left of the political spectrum. Thus, The Daily Show presumes to tell their audience that they are Jewish, young and liberal. The ironic stereotyping only stops short of addressing the dimension of fate, and for good reasons. To mock the members of a sub-identity which is based on their persecution would be another act of victimizing them38. Even Netanyahu could only think of casting Elie Wiesel as the exemplary victim of anti-Semitism, because Wiesel had explicitly supported the prime minister's speech in public (Berman). This made the move less problematic on an individual level, but it still capitalized on the victimization of the collective. The connotations which accompany a switchboard may reveal the intentions behind the choice of that image. A possible, but probably unintended, connotation is that of a volume control. The further a control is turned to the right, the louder it becomes. This would allow for the reading that the political right is louder than the left, but it may also support the notion that conservatives are 'more Jewish' than their liberal counterparts. The latter reading is enhanced by the “Obama” position, which would correspond to the lowest level of volume. It reiterates the accusations sometimes held against the more reluctant supporters of Israel's current policies: being either a ‘self- hating Jew’ or 'not really Jewish’ in the first place. However, this notion is countered by the position of “Baptist” on the right side. An identity which is gentile by all common definitions is positioned on the right. This disrupts any reading that might see degrees of Jewishness in the image. The notion that those on the political right are 'more Jewish' than others is effectively defied. The image also carries the notion of deliberate control over one's status. This is only consistent with the idea that “Netanyahu decided to go full settler” (“Oy Voted” min. 03:14). Hence, switching back and forth deliberately between the different positions in the political spectrum is possible. Netanyahu is portrayed as doing exactly that, when Stewart contrasts the prime minister's warning of Arab voters with the suddenly milder tones he chose after his reelection (min. 03:44–04:42). As for Netanyahu's role in the image above, it is reduced to a side note. The textual world of the image is densely populated by numerous Jewish identities. Netanyahu is simply assigned one of them. Thus, Netanyahu's monopoly on the representation of the entire
38 To realize this, one can simply imagine a field called “Holocaust survivor” on the switchboard above.
62 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Jewish people is denied. He is no longer the standard bearer of a universal Jewishness, but only representative of a certain kind of Jewish sub-identity.
5.2. Angry Jews – Using a Stereotype to Reclaim Diversity In the first segment on March 3, 2015, the audience is also shown the interview with Netanyahu at Tel Aviv airport. The following quote is Stewart's reaction to the prime minister's claim that he is “a representative of the entire Jewish people”:
[Imitating Netanyahu's voice:] I speak for all Jews, including the ones who don't want me to! Because those Jews are wrong. Yeah, don't thank me. [Using his own voice again:] The truth is no one can speak for all Jews, for we are a varied and heterodoxical people, a rich tapestry of Judaic and Talmudic th… [Stops in the middle of the sentence.] We like to argue. We have a lot of opinions on things. Something CNN wanted to get in on by mixing meat and strife – a spokesperson for the left- leaning J-Street and tele-rabbi Shmuley Boteach. (Bibi's Big Adventure, min.02:27)
This is followed by a short clip taken from a CNN debate. In that clip, the screen is divided into two halves. The left side of the screen shows a man in a suit with glasses, the right side a bearded man, also in a suit, who can easily be identified as the rabbi. The men are arguing, but as they are talking at the same time, hardly any words can be understood. A female voice, probably the host of the debate, tries to calm down the men without success. After several seconds of the clip Stewart is shown again and asks with a grin: “When did CNN start hosting my family's Seders?” (“Bibi’s Big Adventure” min.03:14). Thus, Stewart contests the conformity of a supposed global Jewish community, which could be represented by Netanyahu. In his argumentation he uses the cliché of the ever quarreling Jews. As was already pointed out in chapter two, playing with these stereotypical notions about one's own ethnic group has been considered a trademark of Jewish humor. “Only by laughing at themselves do Jews become less vulnerable to the laughter and hostility of the other” (Moshin and Jackson 76). Stewart proves his point that there is a variety of Jewish identities by drawing on the common stereotype that “all Jews constantly argue and disagree with each other”. The irony of this stratagem accounts for much of the joke's funniness, but it also reveals how far-fetched the idea of a single, homogenous Jewish identity actually is. The same stereotype reoccurs in the second segment. First, Jon Stewart reports on the fact that different Jewish groups bought large-scale advertisements in The New York Times in order to publicize their stance on Netanyahu's visit. While some groups complained that he has no right to use Congress as “a prop for [his] election campaign”, others fiercely defended Netanyahu and claimed the Obama administration may “allow genocide in Israel” (“Bibi's Big Adventure – The Media Comeback Kit”, min.00:16).
63 Unity or Diversity
Stewart then contacts his 'Senior Print Analyst' Aasif Mandvi who stands before a blue screen showing the New York Times building. Mandvi explains that Netanyahu's visit and the resulting “passive aggressive large-print death match” (min.00:33) have rescued print media, as money starts pouring in because of the advertisements.
MANDVI. What would you have said a week ago if I'd asked you what it would take to save the publishing industry? STEWART. I would have said, it would take a comet knocking out the internet or newspapers printed on Belgian chocolate. MANDVI. Great ideas, but not as good as “angry Jews”. STEWART. Really one of the better I-Phone games I've played.
(“Bibi’s Big Adventure – The Media Comeback Kit” min.01:04)
Again, Jews are portrayed as the grumpy, constantly arguing group. The segment also plays with the notion of the Jews who control money and media, but here quarreling trumps all other stereotypes and conspiracy theories. Several Jewish groups try to influence public opinion, but they do not have a common goal. Once more The Daily Show sarcastically asserts that the only thing really uniting all Jews is a kind of passionate disunion. The stereotype of the “angry Jews” is so old and so well- established that it can even be found in scientific papers. Broder, for example, describes how “any congressmen who even suggested a cut in aid to Israel would have faced a ferocious response from angry Jews around the country” (93). Stewart's reaction to the stereotype in the skit is an allusion to a popular game for smartphones called Angry Birds. The game features caricatures of birds with frowny faces, which have to be shot at certain targets with a giant sling.
Image 3: Angry birds, taken from the video game of the same name. The caricature reduces the birds to the single emotion of anger and justifies their utilization.
(www.descargarangrybirds.org/descargar-angry-birds-gratis/)
64 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
By connecting “angry Jews” with this game, Stewart makes a comparison which is not too charming. The self-deprecating nature of Stewart's humor does not defend Jewish identity without a slight. Yet, at the same time he highlights the parallels between this video game and one of the widely propagated images of the Jewish people. The myth behind Angry Birds is that of creatures which are reduced to the single emotion of anger and deformed to the corresponding shape of brickbats. With caricatures there is an analogy to the deformation of the sign by the mythological concept. Just as the concept of angriness deforms the sign bird, the caricature literally deforms the original signifier. As a consequence, the birds lose all the qualities of a living being and are reduced to the sole purpose of being shot. Their one-dimensional portrayal allows the player to regard them as objects and utilize them accordingly. To say it in Barthes' terminology, the sign of the bird is robbed of its history (131). The state of anger is naturalized and provides a justification for the historical intentions, which are to objectify and utilize the subject. The portrayal of Jews in the media is a similar act of caricaturizing. Jews are reduced to a ‘typical’ image of their identity in order to be utilized as an argument in political discourse or as a curiosity in the infotainment formats of CNN. With his remark Stewart also points at his own show and acknowledges that it has done precisely that. Jewishness was reduced to quarreling in order to make the case against Netanyahu and entertain the own audience. Yet, by deciphering the myth of Jewish angriness and exposing its function, Stewart once more transforms the critique of his own group into a critique of the stereotype. Thus, the foundation of Stewart's main argument for diversity is dissolved, but only to further the scope of Jewish agency. In spite of Stewart's advocacy for a more diverse approach to Jewish identity, he nevertheless regards Jews as a people who belong together. All their differences and arguments cannot negate that they share vital aspects of Jewish identity, as The Daily
Show would have it towards the end of the episodes second segment.
MANDVI. Things are going great for the Times. Have you seen the weekender? [A massive stack of newspaper is rolled on stage by a props assistant.] STEWART. Did you rob the news stand of all their copies? MANDVI. No Jon, this is one copy. Every Jewish group in the country had to get their two cents in. You know all the trees you have been planting in Israel? STEWART. The people in Israel plant trees, correct, that's what we do.
MANDVI. They're all gone. (min.03:18)
65 Unity or Diversity
While Mandvi's “the trees you have been planting” refers to the Jewish people as a whole, Stewart uses two different terms in his response. “The people in Israel” and “we” are used synonymously. The synonym needs to be established by Stewart, which leaves the sentence at odds with common logic. The people who plant trees in Israel can hardly be the same as the Jewish Americans who run newspaper advertisements, yet the equation is made. Despite of the quest for a more varied picture of Jewish identity, Stewart does not advocate a completely divided Jewry. His ironic greeting of “shalom” at the beginning of the episode and his “comic repackaging of Jewish stereotypes” (Bial 140) may not be the kind of image all Jewish Americans feel comfortable with, but his contributions to an open negotiation of Jewish identity and his resistance against the perceived paternalism of Netanyahu make him an important voice of a new Jewish self-confidence.
Conclusion
The very setup of this paper has suggested a dichotomy. It is called “Unity or Diversity”, implying two camps whose champions are presented in the subtitle. Myths of conflict and duality are conveyed and seem to promise a spectacle. All of this begs the question: “Have I created two pundits and set up the academic equivalent of a Crossfire episode?” I would strongly argue the contrary. Stewart, for example, defends Jewish diversity in the same episode in which he promotes the exclusive right of an American identity to engage in public debate. This diploma thesis has postulated a homogeneous and a heterogeneous outlook on identity in order to have a hermeneutic starting point, from which to interpret identity negotiations. ‘Unity’ and ‘diversity’ have not been presented as the name-tags of two absolute positions. They refer to relative tendencies, one of them more exclusive, the other more inclusive towards 'unclear' Jewish identities. Taken to their extremes, both tendencies would become irrelevant. The more Netanyahu narrows down his definition of 'the Jewish people', the smaller his people becomes. It is not difficult to imagine his unity- approach reach a point at which it can only adequately describe a single individual. This is the point at which the speaker can exclaim in all honesty: “L'État, c'est moi”. On the other hand, the more Stewart expands his definition of Jewishness, the less information is conveyed. If every liberal politician in the US was considered Jewish by virtue of his ideology, Jewishness becomes a buzzword. When the diversity-approach makes an identity all-encompassing, it leaves that identity void of meaning. So, what I have done in this thesis, is to draw a distinction for contrastive analysis. The lack of a middle ground is not due to a bias towards confrontation. The two approaches are
66 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
mutually exclusive, because they only have meaning by comparison to each other. Hence, drawing this line was just as necessary as it is for meaningful social identities to have boundaries. Where exactly I have drawn the line can of course be subject to further negotiation. In this diploma thesis, I have shown that Benjamin Netanyahu used his 2015 speech before Congress to paint the vivid picture of a global Jewish community. He portrays this imagined community as homogeneous by invoking a set of shared traditions and values, allies and enemies. Furthermore, he postulates a single Jewish identity of religious observance and certain political interests. Thus, Netanyahu reduces the multiple dimensions of Jewish identity to an idealized picture of 'the Jew'. This limits the scope of possible Jewish behavior and attitudes just as much as a negative stereotype might (Nilsen 932). Idealizing religious observance, marginalizes the identity of secular Jews. Propagating the national dimension of Jewishness as all- encompassing, excludes those who do not identify with Israel and its government. What Netanyahu gains from defying a multidimensional Jewish identity is a group of 'the truly Jewish' for which he can credibly claim advocacy. As Netanyahu declares himself the voice, the guardian or the “representative of the entire Jewish people” (Bibi's Big Adventure, min.02:09), he also excludes those, who are in ideological opposition to his policies. If Netanyahu is the symbol of Jewishness, whoever repudiates him also repudiates the very concept of Jewishness. In its purest form this argument appears in political discourse when an opponent is denounced as a 'self-hating Jew'. However, Netanyahu avoids mentioning this Jewish Other. Instead he constructs a myth of monstrosity around Iran and the myth of a Jewish champion around himself. He creates a dualistic scenario, in which the only alternative to his position is antisemitism. There is little place for dissent in the textual world of Netanyahu's speech. Whenever he does refer to those who are in favor of political compromise, their ideas are represented as naive and highly speculative. Netanyahu's own positions, however, are reiterated with an air of certainty and expertise. I have further shown that Jon Stewart systematically undermines Netanyahu's authority and develops a counter-narrative of Jews as “a varied and heterodoxical people” (“Bibi’s Big Adventure” min.02:35). Netanyahu's claims resonated strongly among liberal and Orthodox Jews alike, but with quite different responses. In The Daily Show, Stewart cites the resulting agitation inside the Jewish American 'community' as evidence for the diversity of Jewish America. He develops this argument to a degree at which he uses the plain stereotype of the 'angry Jew' to make his point. Hearty disagreement and constant arguing are represented as the one constant aspect of Jewish identity. Ironically, Stewart reduces Jewish identity to a caricature.
67 Unity or Diversity
I have argued that Stewart's humor qualifies as Jewish, insofar as it is a humor of the oppressed. It is a humor which criticizes the own group, while at the same time defending it against a hostile Other, which is usually in a position of power. It was also demonstrated that Stewart uses this humor of the oppressed as a tool to decipher myth. By over-performing them, Stewart repeatedly hints at the absurd nature of stereotypes which deform Jewishness to a caricature. This also means that he acknowledges how Jewish identity is utilized by both The Daily Show and Benjamin Netanyahu. The underlying message is clear: “They must not utilize us.” But an us there is – and Stewart readily identifies with Israeli Jews, no matter how different their opinions on Jewish identity might be from his. Recent political developments indicate that this tension of simultaneous unity and diversity may also be a sensible starting point for future investigations of Jewishness. Many dimensions of Jewish identity are shifting, especially in the relationship between the US and Israel. As of this writing, the unexpected success of Bernie Sanders is unlikely to secure him the Democratic nomination. However, it has amplified the voice of a Jewish senator, who publicly criticizes the party's view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as “one-sided” (Horowitz). It also gave Sanders the chance to appoint members to the drafting committee for the Democrats' new party platform. Among his chosen are outspoken supporters of Palestinian interests such as Keith Ellison, Cornel West and James Zogby (Horowitz and Haberman). If Sanders is any indicator of how Jewish Americans see Israel, then the identification with Jewish nationhood is definitely in decline – at least in the form propagated by the current Israeli government. On the other hand, Netanyahu intends to take the ultra-nationalist party Yisrael Beiteinu into his coalition and assign the post of Defense Minister to its leader Avigdor Lieberman (Beaumont). The move would grant power to one of the most controversial Israeli politicians, who became infamous for his menacing rhetoric. He has repeatedly pledged war and suggested the death penalty for “disloyal Arab-Israelis” (M. Cohen). Whatever comes of this, the political estrangement of a significant fraction of Jewish Americans from their Israeli counterparts seems inevitable. Developments like these are accompanied by other transformations of Jewishness which have been visible for the last few decades. The continuous thrust towards secular Jewish identities will not render Judaism obsolete in the near future, but it will in all likelihood erode religion as “the main unifying basis of international Jewry” (Sand 285). The last generation of holocaust survivors will soon be gone and with them a defining pillar of Jewish identity passes from personal to collective memory. As a result, the ways in which the genocide of the Jewish people will be remembered are going to change. While there are anti-Semitic undertones in the
68 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
growing pro-Palestine camp of the European left (Tran), parties on the right seem to have recently discovered their “Judeo-Christian values” (European People’s Party 2). Even those proponents of the far-right who once loudly professed their antisemitism are gradually changing their tune. Now, Israel serves them as a prime example for two prominent figures of their campaign rhetoric, the 'endangered people' and its 'homeland'. As they have found a new Other in Islam, the Israeli government sees itself confronted with declarations of solidarity by these unlikely, and somewhat unwanted, admirers (Hoare). In America, the remainders of a rich Jewish heritage are not as visible today as they once were in the Yiddish-speaking ghettos of the 19th and 20th centuries. While many elements of a genuinely Jewish culture have faded away, other areas (e.g. journalism, theater) still profit immensely from the contributions of Jewish Americans, but are often perceived as part of an All-American, popular culture. All of these changes will make it increasingly difficult for Jewish Americans to assert their identity. Whether this imagined community will mostly discard the Jewish part of their identity within a few generations or hold it up by reclaiming some of their time-honored traditions, remains to be seen. Jewish Americans may also find new ways of expressing their identity, which could go beyond any of the dimensions covered by this diploma thesis. What Jewish Americans will certainly do, is to continue the passionate negotiations about what it means to be a Jew. The diversity of Jewish opinions does not allow for a narrow definition of Jewish identity. In fact, a definition which excludes a considerable number of people who see themselves as Jews, or marginalizes them, will not prevail. It cannot prevail if the excluded are firmly established in society and voice their ideas on Jewish identity. When it comes to negotiating Jewish identity, a constituent aspect of Jewishness lies in the process of negotiation itself, or as Bial puts it: “The commitment to inquiry and debate about how Jewishness is defined is, arguably, a defining factor of Jewish identity” (141). This means that calling the relevance of certain dimensions of Jewishness into question does not threaten Jewish identity as such, but actually serves as an identifying practice. If we assume this to be the case, then the Jewish American community is as thriving as ever.
69 Unity or Diversity
Works Cited and Consulted Alcoff, Linda M. “Who’s Afraid of Identity Politics?” 2000. Linda Martín Alcoff [online]. www.alcoff.com/articles. Accessed 12 March 2016. Americans Spending More Time Following the News. 12 September 2010. Pew Research Center. www.people-press.org/2010/09/12/americans-spending-more-time-following-the- news/. Accessed 30 June 2015. Amyot, Robert P. and Lee Sigelman. “Jews Without Judaism?: Assimilation and Jewish Identity in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly 77.1 (March 1996). Houston: University of Texas Press. 177-189. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. 1983. London: Verso, 2006. A Portrait of Jewish Americans39. 1 October 2013. Pew Research Center. www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey. Accessed 29 March 2016. Baker, Peter. “In Congress, Netanyahu Faults ‘Bad Deal’ on Iran Nuclear Programme”. The New York Times, 3 March 2015. www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/world/ middleeast/netanyahu-congress-iran-israel-speech.html. Accessed 27 June 2015. Ball, Charles H. “Professor Recalls Netanyahu’s Intense Studies in Three Fields.” MIT News, 5 June 1996. news.mit.edu/1996/netanyahu-0605. Accessed 2 June 2016. Balter, Michael. „Who Are the Jews?: Genetic Studies Spark Identity Debate.” Science vol. 328, no. 5984 (11 June 2010): 1342. Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. 1957. New York: Noonday, 1991. Bartkowski, John. „Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture.” Sociology of Religion 57.3 (Autumn 1996): 259-272. Beaumont, Peter. “Israeli PM Asks Avigdor Lieberman to Be Defence Minister in Shock Move.” The Guardian, 19 May 2016. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/19/israeli- pm-asks-avigdor-lieberman-to-be-defence-minister-shock-move. Accessed 22 May 2016. Behar, Doron M., et al. „The Genome-Wide Structure of the Jewish People“. Nature 466.7303 (8 July 2010): 238-242. Ben-Amos, Dan. “The ‘Myth’ of Jewish Humor.” Western Folklore 32.2 (April 1973): 112- 131. Ben Zion, Ilan and AP. “Jewish Donors Prominent in Presidential Campaign Contributions.” The Times of Israel, 20 October 2012. www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-donors-prominent- in-presidential-campaign-contributions/. Accessed 28 May 2016. Berger, Judson. “Mainstream Media Coverage Slim on NASA, Black Panther Stories.” Fox News, 8 July 2010. www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/08/mainstream-media-coverage- slim-nasa-black-panther-stories.html. Accessed 3 June 2016. Berman, Lazar and JTA. “Elie Wiesel to Attend Netanyahu Speech to Congress”. The Times of Israel, 13 February 2015. www.timesofisrael.com/elie-wiesel-to-attend-netanyahu- speech-to-congress. Accessed 2 June 2016. Bezalel, Mel. “Who is Ben Nitay and why does he look so much like Binyamin Netanyahu?” The Jerusalem Post, 29 March 2009. www.jpost.com/Israel/Who-is-Ben-Nitay-and-why- does-he-look-so-much-like-Binyamin-Netanyahu. Accessed 27 June 2015. Bial, Henry. “Jew Media: Performance and Technology for the 58th Century.” The Drama Review. 55.3 (Fall 2011). New York: NYUP and MIT Press. 134-143. Broder, Jonathan. “Netanyahu and American Jews.” World Policy Journal. 15.1 (Spring 1998). MIT Press. 89-98. Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folk and What That Says about Race in America. 1998. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2004.
39 Page numbers for the surveys of the Pew Research Center refer to the respective “Complete Report PDF“ available on this website.
70 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. “U.S. Relations with Israel”. U.S. Department of State, 10 March 2014. www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm. Accessed 2 June 2016. Burke, Daniel. “Pope Suggests Trump ‘Is Not a Christian.” CNN Politics, 19 February 2016. www.edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/pope-francis-trump-christian-wall/index.html. Accessed 23 March 2016. Bush, George W. Selected Speeches of President George W. Bush. georgewbush- whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/documents/Selected_Speeches_George_W_ Bush.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2016. Butler, Judith. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1997. “Caretaker Speech”. Oxford Reference. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095549708. Accessed 2 June 2016. Carter, Bill. “CNN Will Cancel ‘Crossfire’ and Cut Ties to Commentator.” The New York Times, 6 January 2005. www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/business/media/cnn-will-cancel- crossfire-and-cut-ties-to-commentator.html. Accessed 24 April 2016. Accessed 2 June 2016. Chabin, Michelle. “Married, but Not in Israel.” Jewish Journal, 18 September 2013. www.jewishjournal.com/weddings/article/married_but_not_in_israel. Accessed 2 March 2016. “CNN Crossfire: Jon Stewart’s America.” CNN Transcripts, 15 October 2004. www.transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. “CNN Larry King Live: Interview With Jon Stewart.” CNN Transcripts, 27 February 2006. www.transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/27/lkl.01.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Cohen, Moshe. “Liberman: Disloyal Arab-Israelis ‘Should Be Beheaded’.” Arutz Sheva, 3 August 2015. www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192309#.V1Lzlr7EaJf. Accessed 30 May 2016. Cohen, Roger. “Bernie’s Israel Heresy.” The New York Times, 18 April 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/opinion/bernie-sanders-israel-heresy.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Cohen, Steven M. and Charles S. Liebman. “American Jewish Liberalism: Unraveling the Strands.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 61.3 (Autumn 1997): 405-430. Culler, Jonathan. Saussure. London: Fontana, 1976. Dempsey, Judy. “The Enduring Influence of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Father.” Carnegie Europe, 3 May 2012. carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=48021. Accessed 19 April 2016. Derfner, Larry. “The Late Benzion Netanyahu’s Appalling Views on Arabs.” +972 Magazine, 30 April 2012. www.972mag.com/the-late-benzion-netanyahus-appalling- views-on-arabs/44215/. Accessed 2 June 2016. Die Bibel: Einheitsübersetzung Altes und Neues Testament. Ed. The bishops of Germany and Austria and the dioceses Bozen-Brixen and Lüttich. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. Du Bois, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folk. 1903. Minneapolis, MN: Filiquarian, 2007. Elhaik, Eran. “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses.” Genome Biology and Evolution, 14 December 2012. www.gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/12/14/gbe.evs119.full.pdf. Accessed 6 April 2016. Entine, Jon. “Jews Are a ‘Race’, Genes Reveal.” The Forward, 4 May 2012. www.forward.com/culture/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal. Accessed 19 March 2016. European People’s Party. Protecting the Union and Promoting Our Values. 2015. www.epp.eu/files/uploads/2015/11/Protecting-Union.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2016.
71 Unity or Diversity
Feldman, Gabriel E. „Do Ashkenazi Jews Have a Higher than Expected Cancer Burden?: Implications for Cancer Control Prioritization Efforts.” IMAJ vol. 3 (May 2001): 341- 346. Freeman, Hadley. “Jon Stewart: Why I Quit The Daily Show.” The Guardian, 18 April 2015.www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/18/jon-stewart-why-i-quit-the-daily-show. Accessed 30 June 2015. Freud, Sigmund. Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten. 1905. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2010. Gabler, Neal. An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. New York: Anchor Books, 1989. Garvía, Roberto. Esperanto and Its Rivals: The Struggle for an International Language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. Gillick, Jeremy. “Meet Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz (aka) Jon Stewart: The wildly zeitgeisty Daily Show host.” Moment, November/December 2008. www.momentmag.com/meet- jonathan-stuart-leibowitz-aka-jon-stewart/. Accessed 1 July 2015. Gleis, Joshua L. and Benedetta Berti. Hezbollah and Hamas: A Comparative Study. Blatimore, MD: John Hopkins UP, 2012. Goffman, Erving. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. 1963. London: Penguin, 1990. Gooding-Williams, Robert. “Race, Multiculturalism, and Democracy.” Constellations 5.1 (March 1998): 18-41. Hall, Stuart. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage, 1997. „Hanukkah“. Oxford Reference. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199730049.001.0001/acref- 9780199730049-e-1306. Accessed 2 June 2016. Heilman, Uriel. “Will the Real Netanyahu Please Stand Up?” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 20 March 2015. www.jta.org/2015/03/20/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/will-the-real- netanyahu-please-stand-up. Accessed 2 June 2016. Heilemann, John. “The Tsuris.” New York Magazine, 18 September 2011. nymag.com/news/politics/israel-2011-9/. Accessed 2 June 2016. Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage. Augsburg: Ölbaum-Verlag, 1986. Hoare, Liam. “Far-Right Austrian Leader Visits Israel, Yad Vashem.” Tablet, 12 April 2016. www.tabletmag.com/scroll/199814/far-right-austrian-leader-visits-israel-yad-vashem. Accessed 22 May 2016. Horowitz, Jason and Maggie Haberman. “A Split Over Israel Threatens the Democrats’ Hopes for Unity.” The New York Times, 25 May 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/bernie-sanders-israel-democratic- convention.html. Accessed 28 May 2016. Horowitz, Jason. “Criticizing Israel, Bernie Sanders Highlights Split Among Jewish Democrats.” The New York Times, 15 April 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-israel.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Acquisition of Israeli Nationality.” Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1 January 2010. mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/State/Pages/Acquisition of Israeli Nationality.aspx. Accessed 7 April 2016. “Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu: Commando Turned PM.” BBC News, 18 March 2015. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18008697. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Israel’s Jewish Nation-State Bill: A Primer.” Haaretz, 25 November 2014. www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.628365. Accessed 2 June 2016.
72 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Jackson II, Ronald L. “Scripting Jewishness Within the Satire The Hebrew Hammer.” 2008. Dr. Ronald L. Jackson II [online]. http://www.ronjacksonii.com/articles. Accessed 30 June 2015. Juni, Samuel and Bernard Katz. „Slef-Effacing Wit as a Response to Oppression: Dynamics in Ethnic Humor.” The Journal of General Psychology, 128.2 (2001): 119-142. Kakutani, Michiko. “Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?” The New York Times, 15 August 2008. www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/arts/television/17kaku.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Kaplan, Carla. “Identity.” Keywords for American Cultural Studies [online], New York University Press, keywords.nyupress.org/american-cultural-studies/essay/identity/. Accessed 2 June 2016. Katz, A. J. “The Top Cable News Programs in April 2016 Were…” TV Newser, 7 May 2016. www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-top-cable-news-programs-for-april-2016-were/292405. Accessed 21 May 2016. Kolatch, Jonathan. “Who Is ‘Orthodox’? Who Is ‘Religious’? Who Is ‘Observant’?” Ideas, 1 April 2011. www.jewishideas.org/articles/who-orthodox-who-religious-who-just- observant. Accessed 2 April 2015. Lewis, Jeff. Cultural Studies: The Basics. 2nd edition. London: Sage, 2011. Loughlin, Jean. “Bush Hails ‘Day of Deliverance’ for Iraq.” CNN, 20 March 2004. edition.cnn.com/2004/US/03/19/bush.speech/index.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Maisel, L. Sandy and Ira N. Forman. Jews in American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Marcus, Jonathan. “Have Israel-US Relations Reached a New Low?” BBC News, 19 June 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-33181782. Accessed 2 June 2016. Molloy, Antonia. “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei Outlines Plan to ‘Eliminate’ Israel.” Independent, 10 November 2014. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle- east/irans-supreme-leader-ayatollah-khamenei-outlines-plan-to-eliminate-israel- 9850472.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Montopoli, Brian. “Jon Stewart Rally Attracts Estimated 215,000.” CBS News, 31 October 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jon-stewart-rally-attracts-estimated-215000/. Accessed 30 May 2016. Moshin, Jamie J. and Ronald L. Jackson II. “Constructing, Negotiating, and Communicating Jewish Identity in America.” 2008. Dr. Ronald L. Jackson II [online]. http://www.ronjacksonii.com/articles. Accessed 30 June 2015. Neusner, Jacob. „Jew and Judaist, Ethnic and Religious: How They Mix in America.” Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity: An Introduction. Ed. Craig R. Prentiss. New York: New York UP, 2003. 85-100. Nilsen, Alleen Pace. “In Defense of Humor.” College Education 56.8 (December 1994): 928- 933. O’Clery, Conor. “The Daily Capers.” The Irish Times, 19 February 2005. www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/the-daily-capers-1.416746. Accessed 14 May 2016. Ott, Brian L. and Robert L. Mack. Critical Media Studies: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley, 2014. Parfitt, Tudor V. “The Use of Hebrew in Palestine 1800-1822.” Journal of Semitic Studies 17.2 (1972): 237-252. “Patrilineal Descent.” Jewish Virtual Library. [online]. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource /Judaism/patrilineal.html. Accessed 2 June 2016. Pfeffer, Anshel. “Netanyahu speaks for all Jews whether they like it or not.” Haaretz, 12 February 2015. www.haaretz.com/blogs/jerusalem-babylon/.premium-1.642297. Accessed 30 June 2015. Prentiss, Craig R., ed. Religion and the Creation of Race and Ethnicity: An Introduction. New York: New York UP, 2003.
73 Unity or Diversity
“Profile: Ariel Sharon.” BBC News, 1 January 2014. www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east- 11746593. Accessed 20 April 2016. Rebhun, Uzi. “Jewish Identity in America: Structural Analyses of Attitudes and Behaviors.” Review of Religious Research 46.1 (September 2004): 43-63. Reitter, Paul. “The Jewish Self-Hatred Octopus.” The German Quarterly: German-Jewish and Jewish-German Studies 82.3 (Summer 2009): 356-372. Rogak, Lisa. Angry Optimist: The Life and Times of Jon Stewart. New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2014. Rudoren, Jodi. „Proudly Bearing Elders‘ Scars, Their Skin Says ‚Never Forget‘.” The New York Times, 30 September 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/world/middleeast/with- tattoos-young-israelis-bear-holocaust-scars-of-relatives.html?pagewanted=all. Accessed 26 March 2016. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. 1978. London: Penguin, 2003. Sales, Ben. “Netanyahu Comeback Propelled by Hardline Rhetoric Calls for Unity on Right.” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 18 March 2015. www.jta.org/2015/03/18/news- opinion/israel-middle-east/call-for-unity-and-rightward-shift-give-netanyahu-a-decisive- comeback. Accessed 22 May 2016. Sand, Shlomo. The Invention of the Jewish People. London: Verso, 2009. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Réflexions sur la question juive. Paris: Paul Morihien, 1946. Savitz, Leonard D. and Richard F. Tomasson. “The Identifiability of Jews.” American Journal of Sociology 64.5 (March 1959): 468-475. Schneer, David. “Queer Is the New Pink: How Queer Jews Moved to the Forefront of Jewish Culture.” Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality 1.1 (January 2007): 55-64. Shabad, Rebecca. “Ben Carson: President Obama Was ‘Raised White’.” CBS News. 23 February 2016. www.cbsnews.com/news/ben-carson-president-obama-was-raised-white. Accessed 11 March 2016. Shlaim, Avi. “The Iron Wall Revisited.” Journal of Palestine Studies 41.2 (Winter 2012): 80- 98. Sonsino, Rabbi Rifat. “Religious vs. Observant: What’s the Difference?” Sonsino’s Blog, 15 January 2015, http://rsonsino.blogspot.com. Accessed 2 June 2016. Stewart, Jon. Naked Pictures of Famous People. New York: Perennial, 2001. Tobin, Jonathan S. “Jews, Money and 2012.” Commentary, 1 March 2012. www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jews-money-and-2012/. Accessed 2 June 2016. Tracy, Marc. “Perry’s Ascent Heralds Israel’s Rise as Issue”. Tablet, 23 August 2011. www.tabletmag.com/scroll/75874/perry%E2%80%99s-ascent-heralds- israel%E2%80%99s-rise-as-issue. Accessed 11 May 2016. Tran, Mark. “Labour Opens Inquiry Into Antisemitism Allegations at Oxford Student Club.” The Guardian, 17 February 2016. www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/17/labour- condemns-antisemitism-oxford-university-labour-club-claims. Accessed 25 May 2016. Troy, Gil. “Happy Birthday, Mr. Kissinger”. Tablet, 23 May 2013. http://www.tabletmag.com/ jewish-news-and-politics/132819/happy-birthday-mr- kissinger. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Who Is a Jew?” Wikipedia. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F. Accessed 5 February 2016. Yiddish Dictionary Online. yiddishdictionaryonline.com/. Accessed 2 June 2016. Zeiger, Asher. “Ahmadinejad’s New Call for Israel’s Annihilation Is His Most Anti-Semitic Assault to Date, Says ADL.” The Times of Israel, 2 August 2012. www.timesofisrael.com/adl-blasts-ahmadinejads-latest-call-for-israels-annihilation-as- ominous/. Accessed 2 June 2016.
74 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Films, Episodes from Television Series, and Other Visual Materials Angry birds. Digital image. Descargar Angry Birds. Ravio Entertainment. www.descargarangrybirds.org/descargar-angry-birds-gratis. Accessed 12 May 2015. “Beywatch – Limousine Sex” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart, performance by Jessica Williams. Comedy Central, 1 May 2014. www.cc.com/video-clips/ayjcrf/the- daily-show-with-jon-stewart-beywatch---limousine-sex. Accessed 1 June 2016. “Bibi’s Big Adventure.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 3 March 2015. www.thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/13ry42/bibi-s-big-adventure. Accessed 28 May 2016. “Bibi’s Big Adventure – The Media Comeback Kit.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Performance by Aasif Mandvi. Comedy Central, 3 March 2015. www.thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/p87z5f/bibi-s-big-adventure---the-media-comeback- kid. Accessed 28 May 2016. “Big Speech 6 – America’s Couple.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart, performance by Samantha Bee and Jason Jones. Comedy Central, 21 January 2015. www.cc.com/video-clips/xtk0bz/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-big-speech-6---america- s-couple. Accessed 1 June 2016. “Chaos on Bulls**t Mountain.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 19 September 2012. www.cc.com/video-clips/p6cltq/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart- chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain. Accessed 1 June 2016. “Entire Jon Stewart Interview.” Fox News, 29 April 2011. www.video.foxnews.com/v/4003531/entire-jon-stewart-interview/?#sp=show-clips. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Exclusive: Jon Stewart on ‘Fox News Sunday’.” Fox News, 19 June 2011. www.video.foxnews.com/v/1007046245001/exclusive-jon-stewart-on-fox-news- sunday/?#sp=show-clips. Accessed 2 June 2016. Globe graphics. Digital Image. BBC News, 8 August 2011. www.bbc.com/news/uk- 14452772. Accessed 2 April 2016. “Gone With the WMD – Syrian Government Open for Business.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart, performance by Jessica Williams. Comedy Central, 8 October 2013. www.cc.com/video-clips/cqj25f/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-gone-with-the-wmd--- syrian-government-open-for-business. Accessed 1 June 2016. “Headlines – Use the Force.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 16 February 2006. www.cc.com/video-clips/ojnxwj/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart- headlines---use-the-force. Accessed 28 May 2016. “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” AIPAC Policy Conference, 22 March 2016. www.policyconference.org/gallery/videos.asp. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Judith Miller Pt.1.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 29 April 2015. www.cc.com/video-clips/b7akvf/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-judith-miller-pt--1. Accessed 25 April 2016. “Mess O’Potamia – WMD Search.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central,
75 Unity or Diversity
13 January 2005. www.cc.com/video-clips/llc6rb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mess- o-potamia---wmd-search. Accessed 25 April 2016. “Netanyahu Addresses Both Houses of Congress.” The Washington Post, 3 March 2015. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/03/full-text-netanyahus- address-to-congress. Accessed 28 May 2016. Netanyahu at War. Directed by Michael Kirk, created by Michael Kirk and Mike Wiser. PBS, 5 January 2016. www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/netanyahu-at-war. Accessed 19 May 2016. Obama, Barack, speaker. “A New Beginning.” The White House, 4 June 2009. www.whitehouse.gov/blog/newbeginning/transcripts. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Oy Voted.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 18 March 2015. www.cc.com/video-clips/xoh10m/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-oy-voted. Accessed 28 May 2016. Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure. Produced by Robert Shapiro and Richard G. Abramson, directed by Tim Burton, performance by Paul Reubens (Pee-Wee Herman). Warner, 1985. “PM Netanyahu at Taglit-Birthright Mega-Event.” IsraeliPM, 12 January 2016. Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KzHnC3THEo. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” Charlie Rose, 2 October 2015. www.charlierose.com/videos/21370. Accessed 2 June 2016. “Rationalization: Iraqi Freedom.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 24 July 2003. www.cc.com/video-clips/8sdnyl/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart- rationalization--iraqi-freedom. Accessed 26 April 2016. “Sanders: Holocaust Taught Me About Political Extremism.” CNN Politics, 7 March 2016. www.edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/03/07/democratic-debate-flint-bernie-sanders- jewish-holocaust-08.cnn/video/playlists/2016-democratic-presidential-debates. Accessed 2 June 2016. “September 11, 2001.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 20 September 2001. www.cc.com/video-clips/1q93jy/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart- september-11--2001. Accessed 3 April 2016. “Stephen Colbert.” Charlie Rose, 8 December 2006. www.charlierose.com/videos/11283“Stephen Colbert“ interview (min 03:36). Accessed 2 June 2016. “The Daily Show: Full Episodes.” Comedy Central, 2015. www.cc.com/full-episodes/z51gjj. Accessed 14 May 2016. “The Thin Jew Line.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart, performance by Wyatt Cenac. Comedy Central, 23 March 2011. www.cc.com/video-clips/1jsrl7/the-daily-show-with- jon-stewart-the-thin-jew-line. Accessed 11 April 2016. “This Just In – Talmud Slinging.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 1 February 1999. www.cc.com/video-clips/1jsrl7/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-thin- jew-line. Accessed 15 March 2016. “Wait, Wait… Don’t Tell Him.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart, performance by Jessica Williams. Comedy Central, 28 October 2013. www.cc.com/video-clips/h95z0j/the- daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wait-wait----don-t-tell-him-. Accessed 1 June 2016. “We Need to Talk About Israel.” The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Created by Madeleine Smithberg and Lizz Winstead, produced and presented by Jon Stewart. Comedy Central, 21 July 2014. www.cc.com/video-clips/7wnfel/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-we-need- to-talk-about-israel. Accessed 2 June 2016.
76 Bernhard Kogler-Sobl
Declaration
I hereby confirm that this diploma thesis entitled
Unity or Diversity: Negotiating Jewishness in Benjamin Netanyahu’s Speech before Congress and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is the result of my own independent academic work. All sources (books, articles, essays, dissertations, the internet, etc.) are cited correctly in this paper; quotations and paraphrases are acknowledged. No material other than that listed has been used. I also certify that this paper or parts thereof have not been used previously as examination material (by myself or anyone else) in another course at this or any other university. I understand that any violation of this declaration will result in legal consequences possibly leading to my expulsion from the University of Graz.